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

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

well it certainly can't be said that I haven't done both

gawker = the sun then? fair enough

was that to me?

no

not at all

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

Posts out of context etc

hello muddah, hello faddah

lol

Gawker ain't doing much tabloids weren't doing in the 40's except we can stream video now
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123584348

True but they seem to think of themselves as being different than the traditional gutter press. Lagoon was arguing that gawker's less mediated approach to the news was a correction to the mainstream press and its kowtowing to authority

i am supposed to admit it was an asshole move that crossed a line (it wasnt, and i wont, but i dont think we are going to reach an agreement on this question).

The legal questions are so much less interesting to me than the asshole questions, but Max answers it here: He doesn't believe it's an asshole move to put someone's sex video on the internet against their wishes. I can't come up with a scenario - "newsworthy" or otherwise; celebrity or member of the public; Tyga or Jennifer Lawrence - where this isn't a disgusting thing to do or be associated with. So he's right - we aren't going to reach an agreement on that question!

in Max's professional opinion tbf

YRAML are you an old ilx poster i dont recognize? not meant as a dig, j/w

Long time lurker I guess.

None of this is personal, FWIW - I think you're a great writer and despite my hysterical stance I read a lot of this shit

I can't come up with a scenario - "newsworthy" or otherwise; celebrity or member of the public; Tyga or Jennifer Lawrence - where this isn't a disgusting thing to do or be associated with.

imagine, for example, you have a politician's sex tape, in which the politician can be heard using ethnic slurs. doesn't the public have a right to know, even if a sex tape is published without that politician's consent? alternately, imagine a situation where the judiciary carves out a large free-speech exemption under the umbrella of privacy expectations. what goes next? romney's 47 percent speech? before you say it: i am aware that hulk hogan's 15-second sex tape is not either of these things. but precedent matters.

But the key is that Hulk Hogan's 15-second sex tape is neither of those things!

Unrelated sex-tape thing I just saw Tweeted where I'm not even sure after reading it what went on:

A jury has ordered 50 Cent to pay $5m (£3.2m) to a woman who claims he acquired a sex tape she made with her boyfriend, recorded himself commenting on the footage and then posted it online without permission.

Lastonia Leviston sued the Get Rich Or Die Tryin' rapper for invasion of privacy over the 13-minute video which appeared on the internet in 2009, featuring 50 Cent wearing a wig as narrator "Pimpin' Curly".

During the footage, the character makes explicit remarks about Ms Leviston and taunts rap rival Rick Ross, who has a daughter with her.

At the time the footage was put online, Ross and 50 Cent were trading attacks against each other in song lyrics, interviews and on videos.

Jurors will continue deliberating this week on possible punitive damages against the rapper, whose real name is Curtis Jackson.

William Brewer III, a lawyer for the rapper, said his legal team was "disappointed in the verdict but very appreciative of the service of the jury and the court".

50 Cent got the video from Ms Leviston's boyfriend at the time. The rapper and his lawyers said he did not post it online, but Ms Leviston's boyfriend said he would not mind if he did.

During pre-trial questioning, 50 Cent said that the Pimpin' Curly character's reference to Ms Leviston as a "porn star" was a joke.

Ms Leviston, of Pembroke Pines, Florida, said she was horrified and humiliated when the video went online.

She testified: "This was something done to me. I didn't have a choice. I would never, ever do this to myself."

Last month, Ross was charged with kidnapping and assault.

Sorry for that annoying line spacing