Hacker News Reader

Comment by zamiang_brennan | Hacker News Reader

I'm a bit confused why people are taking the side of Hulk Hogan. Maybe the dislike of gossip news is blinding people to the larger free speech implications.

Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person?

Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent?

Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were initially obtained illegally but were given to the publication? (see wikileaks…etc)

If you answered 'yes' to all 3, what principals (or ideally…laws) let you side with Hulk Hogan?

View on HN

Because this is a civil case, that's why. The government has does nothing to Gawker. No one has been censored, illegally detained, or made to vanish. That is what free speech is about: ensuring the government cannot censor or retaliate against you for publishing an piece of work that criticizes the government.

In civil cases, freedom of speech does not cover defamation of character (libel and slander). I think publishing someone's sex tape could definitely harm their reputation, which is what free speech does NOT protect.

Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/

That's not how defamation works. The Hogan case hinged on him being able to demonstrate that gawker harmed his ability to continue to make money. The jury decided that there was material harm. And, perhaps the judge threw the book at them due to their arrogance: refusing to obey a court order to take down the offending material and making flippant comments about child porn.

Wow, talk about making a false argument!

Let's rephrase this:

Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that are in the public interest?

Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were obtained illegally but were given to the publication, and that are in the public interest?

Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent, when it is in the public interest?

Yes, I do. But you shouldn't be able to photograph me in my own home whilst I'm naked and having a shower, and certainly not without my consent. Nor should you be able to do this to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

Nor should you be allowed to make these photos by breaking into my house and installing a miniature camera in my bathroom.

> But you shouldn't be able to photograph me in my own home whilst I'm naked and having a shower, and certainly not without my consent.

Did you intend the implication that, if I had your consent, I probably still shouldn't be able to photograph you in the shower?

No.

>Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person?

Yes.

>Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent?

Depends. Is it important that other people know these facts, as in "will they be harmed/make bad decisions if they don't know them"? (Think knowledge about a politician.)

>Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were initially obtained illegally but were given to the publication? (see wikileaks…etc)

See question two.

I don't think a publication should be allowed to publish intimate facts about a person without their consent, if there is no greater good at stake.

This includes irrelevant sextapes.

Also if there is a greater good at stake (for example the security of a nation) its questionable if the public needs to have access to every intimate detail, that often just contribute to humiliating the person in question.

depends on what "publish facts" means. if you're being vague enough that privacy effectively ceases to exist, then no. you'll need to be a bit more clear and specific on what this means.

At the end of the day I am forced to agree with you. Is the publication of this content morally wrong? Yes. Are the publishers pieces of shit for doing this? Yes. Is what they did illegal? Unless they committed a crime to obtain the content, I would have to say no.

It's not illegal, but it publishing someone's intimate details without his consent falls into the realm of civil law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com