hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

i dont think denton ever alluded to the hogan tape as something he wasn't proud of

the hulk discussion is sort of a distraction i think because sex tapes have been published/distributed several times over and, barring gawker getting crippled in the trial, will continue to be published/widely distributed as long as they're made. sex tapes have normalized considerably over time, and in the cases of people like tommy lee & pam anderson or kim & ray j, they have even been widely accepted by society. people debate whether kim kardashian has the "right" to be as famous as she is because she was for a long time most noteworthy for having appeared in a sex tape ("no talent!"), but basically nobody ever debates whether the sex tape should have been published/distributed in the first place, or whether some horrible injustice was inflicted upon her because it's so readily available. (obv i'm accepting here that the kim tape was leaked/sold/distributed w/o her secret cooperation. if that's not the case there are other, similar examples.) the hogan tape is only a controversy because he's suing, and because the suit has made it to trial. if he hadn't sued or if it was dismissed years ago the public would have long forgotten about it. (there is a lesson for hulk there, of course.)

but the hacked reddit nudes are a more interesting case. for example, gawker posted olivia munn & christina hendricks nudes in 2012. those nudes were obtained via a hack. when the nude hack happened this time around, gawker didn't publish any of the photos, and neither did any websites or blogs. reddit nuked any links to them, so did imgur. part of this is legal -- celebrity legal teams have gotten smarter about how to attack these sorts of incidents -- but much of it was moral. those images were banished to the very dark corners of the web. the world has become more aware of what women are subjected to online, and making the internet a safer space for women has become an increasingly important issue over time, to which everyone must contribute, and thus the collective moral compass has realigned itself.

i was thinking about this earlier this week because there were a lot of people asking how gawker/i would publish a photo of tyga's dick but not fappening nudes. there are several differences between the two but one is that the way the internet operates in 2015 necessitates a higher (very high) bar for publishing nude images of a female celebrity without her consent, whereas i think the bar for a male celeb's nudes is much, much lower. (this is all very imo for the record.) the newsworthiness is not exactly different, but gawker (for instance) would have had to be as evil as its worst critics say it is to not consider what publishing the hacked reddit nudes would mean for its subjects.

xp think k3vin is referring to this from the New York Times article and remembering incorrectly:

“A lot of our traffic last year came from stories that we weren’t ultimately proud of,” Mr. Denton said. He cited Gawker Media’s biggest traffic sensation in 2014, a video compilation of people messing up the Ice Bucket Challenge that has attracted more than 16 million views. “You’re going to get a spike from a story like that, but at the end of the year, what does it say about your brand, and are you measuring that?” Mr. Denton would prefer to see his brand associated with the Manti T’eo story, or Gizmodo’s iPhone 4 scoop (in 2010, it bought a prototype of the as-yet-unreleased phone), or the 2013 post by a Gawker writer who had watched a cellphone video of Rob Ford, the mayor of Toronto at the time, smoking crack.

xp that is very interesting (srsly) but i continue to question why publishing nudes of anyone is necessary for gawker

the newsworthiness is not exactly different, but gawker (for instance) would have had to be as evil as its worst critics say it is to not consider what publishing the hacked reddit nudes would mean for its subjects.

i mean how is publishing a video of a florida woman having sex not worthy of that consideration?

the way the internet operates in 2015 necessitates a higher (very high) bar for publishing nude images of a female celebrity without her consent, whereas i think the bar for a male celeb's nudes is much, much lower. (this is all very imo for the record.

I think this is true but just because gawker is more likely to experience blowback for violating the privacy of women than men. I don't think there's that much of a moral difference between the tyga case and the j-law one except, like, everyone likes j-law and tyga sucks. tyga won't have to endure misogynistic responses, so it might not be as bad for him, but it still seems unpleasant

And if the issue is privacy violation, the distinction disappears

xp that is very interesting (srsly) but i continue to question why publishing nudes of anyone is necessary for gawker

― mookieproof, Sunday, July 12, 2015 9:35 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

well, i think the question is similar to what you have to consider with any extreme images (i.e. gore): are the images vital to tell the story? if so, how much? gawker institutionally leans towards openness on that front. for instance, last year we got intense flak from readers for linking to videos of isis killing hostages. at the same time there was a whole debate over whether media organizations should show images of, or link to, isis hostage videos because some people see it as being complicit in distributing propaganda. we still link to their videos.

in the hulk case, i (personally) think the clip of the video is vital for the story. aj's post is amazing -- a funny and painstakingly narrated, but still nonjudgemental, depiction of the life of an over the hill celebrity. it's a great piece of writing about a subject america has forever been fascinated by. but it's not as powerful now that the video is down.

like last year, gawker/i posted a video of a nude dov charney dancing with his employees. (we had to take the video down after a copyright claim.) i briefly described the video. everybody knows dov charney is a creep. it's not an even a secret. did we *really* need to see his dick swinging in the video to get the picture? i would still argue that we do, that it gives us an even fuller picture of dov charney (or hulk hogan!) and thus it should be published. (and my story as it stands now is significantly weakened because of it)

wait, are people actually arguing that it should be legal to publish videos/images of people having sex without their permission?!

xp think k3vin is referring to this from the New York Times article and remembering incorrectly:

“A lot of our traffic last year came from stories that we weren’t ultimately proud of,” Mr. Denton said. He cited Gawker Media’s biggest traffic sensation in 2014, a video compilation of people messing up the Ice Bucket Challenge that has attracted more than 16 million views. “You’re going to get a spike from a story like that, but at the end of the year, what does it say about your brand, and are you measuring that?” Mr. Denton would prefer to see his brand associated with the Manti T’eo story, or Gizmodo’s iPhone 4 scoop (in 2010, it bought a prototype of the as-yet-unreleased phone), or the 2013 post by a Gawker writer who had watched a cellphone video of Rob Ford, the mayor of Toronto at the time, smoking crack.
― an asteroid could hit the planet (Sufjan Grafton), Sunday, July 12, 2015 9:30 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah I was confusing the two. it's hard not to read that in context and see it as sort of a hedge, tho

If there's a medal for mental gymnastics, it sounds like the Gawer staff is gunning for the gold.

I appreciate their responses. Gawker is sort of the avant garde of new media ethics, fortunately or unfortunately, and this is interesting

okay! guess i think a fair bit less of max and j0rd, which i was trying to avoid, but so it goes

and yes, sarahell

I mean, don't get me wrong. I don't like gawker and i definitely don't buy in to their revolution

i'm sorry but that's gross and closer to revenge porn than anything ...

still lol at joe for implying that gawker is doing some equivalent of releasing the Pentagon papers

if only this had all been on kinja

wait, are people actually arguing that it should be legal to publish videos/images of people having sex without their permission?!

― sarahell, Sunday, July 12, 2015 9:49 PM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark

thinking that it should be illegal is a pretty far right position, so yes this is an argument

all those feminists on the far right who are opposed to revenge porn and sexual exploitation

dunno about 'far right' ya libertarian

'Far right'. You are out of your fucking mind.

if you're talking about celebrity sex tapes the law is pretty clear about the legality of publishing them

that law should be changed then

the law was changed and someone published a celebrity sex tape against the will of the celebrity would you put that person in prison

it's not a violent crime, so i wouldn't put that person in prison, but fine them, award their victime $$ in a lawsuit, fuck yes.

out of curiosity, did gawker compensate the videographer

it currently is legal to publish videos and images of people having sex without their permission [dangling modifier there hm], provided thresholds of newsworthiness are met. (setting copyright claims aside). the law and the courts have traditionally formulated an expansive definition of newsworthiness, with good reason. 10 seconds of hulk hogan having sex is not "revenge porn" in fact or in effect. this cannot be said enough! attempts to limit speech based on that speech's content are a tough sell to courts (and, i'd hope, the public).

you can read the post here, with details about how the video was obtained

http://gawker.com/5948770/even-for-a-minute-watching-hulk-hogan-have-sex-in-a-canopy-bed-is-not-safe-for-work-but-watch-it-anyway

this was the followup

http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088

a collection of articles for persual, both pro and con and ambivalent

http://nick.kinja.com/hulk-v-gawker-the-story-so-far-1716479711

did the woman involved give permission for this to be published?

Gaze not etc., sarahell

'far right'

yeah this is v off the mark formulation for multiple reasons

Gawker is sort of the avant garde of new media ethics

did the woman involved give permission for this to be published?

what i gather from reading some of the links is she is likely copyright-holder
& perhaps (don't know, just speculation) was involved in gawker acquiring tape

ive got a feeling that jordan and max will be way less invested in defending this stuff when they dont work for gawker anymore, just a hunch idk

Lol

conversation here tangled bc ethics & legality inevitably (get) entangled

except we can stream video now

but this is key distinction, re both ethics & (in present case) legality: 'newsworthiness' of not just reporting on contents but actually showing video

if they did a dramatic re-enactment using a hogan action figure and a barbie doll

no way this way lies the nyt promoting war in the middle east

if they did a dramatic re-enactment using a hogan action figure and a barbie doll

tbh this would have been a+

i rather doubt reporters/editors/owners for confessional or true story or any of the like had any real deviations from gawker's current ethical position, they just didn't have the tech

true.

sarahell how do you feel about hate speech

uh oh k3v has switched teams

I don't think there's that much of a moral difference between the tyga case and the j-law one except, like, everyone likes j-law and tyga sucks.

― Treeship, Monday, 13 July 2015 01:45 (3 hours ago) Permalink

I suspect this is a big factor in the sea change we've seen. Pam Anderson and Paris Hilton were mostly laughingstocks before their sex tapes were released so no one had moral quandaries over watching. But J Law & some of the others in the fappening were respectable celebrities.

The sheer number of people affected may have been a factor as well.

sarahell how do you feel about hate speech

― wisdom be leakin out my louche douche truths (k3vin k.), Monday, July 13, 2015 1:02 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

its protected status I mean. I'm sure you dislike hate speech

the idea that male celebs don't deserve the same expectation of privacy seems.... morally questionable

uh oh k3v has switched teams

― mookieproof, Monday, July 13, 2015 1:05 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I've been in legal-but-dick-move camp the whole time!

there's a new article on Salon about how we should make owning a confederate flag a hate crime, very good Salon stuff

Glenn greenwald must be proud

yes but interrogating the dick-move camp on its legal beliefs is less enlightening than interrogating the camp that made the dick move