Hacker News Reader

Comment by olliej | Hacker News Reader

It wasnt illegally made, it wasnt stolen, it was in the public interest (hogan is a very public figure, and has gone on at length about being faithful, not cheating, loose morals of young people).

So... Reporting on that seems like actual information that should be public? Compare to the pamela anderson tape, which was with her husband, was literally /stolen from their home/, and was sold for profit. Judge ruled that there wasnt anythig they could do.

Meanwhile, Thiel who was using hogan as a proxy has literally just demonstrated that you cant afford to post opinion pieces about tech billionaires and their occassionally delusional comments about how people should behave.

View on HN

Me knowing who someone screws is absolutely not in the public interest. A video of someone screwing that they don't want public and more specifically, didn't consent to film is also not in the public interest. Privacy is a right.

I'm posting this on a throwaway account for obvious reasons, so this comment is showing up as dead. Would someone mind vouching it? Thanks!

It wasnt illegally made, it wasnt stolen, it was in the public interest (hogan is a very public figure, and has gone on at length about being faithful, not cheating, loose morals of young people).

This fetish is called wifesharing. It's not cheating, and it's not immoral. You may not personally like the idea, but calling someone's fetish immoral when all parties consent to the act is strange. Saying that it's in the public interest to know is offensive.

There are many sources that say this was a consensual act. I won't post these sordid articles here, but they are very easy to find.

This is equivalent to someone being gay, and someone else saying that it's in the public interest for their immoral acts to be made public.

I've unkilled your comment and marked the account legit, but please don't ask for people to vouch for a dead comment. That's no better than asking for votes, which isn't allowed. Also, please don't post the same comment twice.

Do you have a source on that? I understood that the film was stolen in addition to being taken without the knowledge or consent of Hogan.

FWIW, unless there's some real public interest beyond the prurient, I don't see why people should be able to publish anyone's private sex tapes without their consent. I would tend to say that the right to privacy should win in such cases.

Reporting on it isn't what got them taken down.

Posting the video got them in trouble (for obvious reasons), and refusing to take it down played a big role in the final sentence (aka death).

by extension, the Fappenning was public interest, too. But somehow Gawker is saying "In the summer of 2014, anonymous hackers flooded the internet with private nude photos of major (and minor) celebrities. Two years later, new details show the FBI thinks they identified Jennifer Lawrence’s hacker. But no one’s facing charges."

"hogan is a very public figure"

So it's OK as long as they cross the "very" threshhold?

Which opinion piece are you referring to? I thought that they outed him as gay?

The video WAS illegal because California is a two-party state. You can't record without the consent of ALL parties.

Also, just because it interests you and you're a member of the public does not make it a public interest

Reply on news.ycombinator.com