Hacker News Reader

Comment by redthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Why does anybody believe there are constitutional issues with the case? Freedom of expression explicitly does not cover the sort of revenge porn that Gawker habitually engaged in. There is absolutely no first amendment cover for their actions.

Thiel in essence insuring the lawsuit so that an unfavourable verdict would not harm Hogan is in no way an attack on free speech or the free press.

Something tells me that if Breitbart had decided to host Jennifer Lawrence's nude pics and gloat about how they were refusing a court order to remove them, liberals would not be engaging in this hand-wringing.

View on HN

I think the culture will eventually change so that both JLaw's selfies and the Hulkster's closet porn will be covered by the First Amendment, but I agree that at this time, at least the former are not so covered. I also agree that what's sauce for the gander ought to be sauce for the goose, so until that changes the latter are also not so covered.

I'm not sure what you are saying. JLaw's selfies are covered by the first amendment. They are also covered by the Constitution. That is she can release them, but some one with out rights can't. The first doesn't say you can use someone else's words.

Where does it say that freedom of expression does not cover revenge porn? It's actually the opposite. There is a very, very small number of exceptions to freedom of speech and what Gawker was doing is not one of them.

34 states plus D.C. now have laws against 'revenge porn'

http://www.cybercivilrights.org/revenge-porn-laws/

According to the article linked below, although the posting of explicit pictures of people online against their will is a legal gray area:

"[T]he legal landscape is changing and states are moving towards criminalizing revenge porn."

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/revenge-porn-...

> Freedom of expression explicitly does not cover the sort of revenge porn that Gawker habitually engaged in.

Implicitly. If it was explicit, then the exception would be directly written into the text of the 1st Amendment.

"Freedom of expression" is guaranteed, but not defined, by the first amendment. It's defined by 250 years of jurisprudence and precedent. Courts have repeatedly, explicitly, said that this sort of thing is not covered by the first amendment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com