It’s not libel or slander to say a guy said something that he actually said and did something that he actually did. They were sued for invasion of privacy.
Ok so imagine this shit you are in your work place and decided to send some "hot" pictures to your gf. You both broke up and she decided to share thoes photos with everyone she knows. The question is, are you allowed to sue her for sharing your nude pictures? Legally yes if you have enough money, morally? NO freedom it's freedom this rich fuckers get what the want just because they have money don't you get it ? Hulk Hogan was able to win because someone else pay for him!
This entire case was ridiculous. Hogan was trying to say that he and Hulk Hogan were two different people and that he had the right to privacy, even when he had no problems inviting the camera crews into his home to film a reality series.
@@Skooter-ko1yj good point. He has always been a real weasel type, but I never thought I’d see the day where people are cheering on such weasely behavior
I do agree with you that freedom of speech can be an ugly thing, but that doesn’t count for Gawker’s invasion of privacy. They stalked people as a main feature of the website, and they leaked sex tapes. So yes if gawker was just people talking I would say it should’ve stayed, but leaking sex tapes and systematically stalking people isn’t covered by freedom of speech. I just believe you should’ve cover that in your conclusion
Ehh, the way I see it, "freedom of speech" simply means "the government can't put you in jail for saying something mean about them," not "I can say whatever I want with zero consequence." And outing gay people without their consent is not only a dick move, but also legitmately putting the gay person in potential danger. I think Gawker definitely deserved some consequences because you can't just use "free speech" as an excuse to be an asshole
@king fuqurmahmen Outing gay people does not "keep democracy going." Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. There have always been things that you can't say. You can't make death threats or terrorist threats, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre or incite a riot, you can't commit slander or libel, etc. The First Amendment simply gives you the right to criticize the government and public figures. It does not give you the right to do or say something that could people in danger
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. It’s annoying that there are people who think it should mean literally able to say and do whatever you want without any consequences.
@calebokay9665 To be fair they could've been bi like Ted Haggard who had a wife but yeah regardless it's likely libel from Gawker using the tiniest pieces to make a whole puzzle and call it a day
@@Santoryu90that’s a good take, I feel a lot of people feel exempt from criticism because they pride themselves on being “honest” and that narrative applies to this topic
Gawker wasn't "canceled" nor were they censored by an internet company. They were sued for invasion of privacy and they lost. Making a distinction between cancel culture and bankruptcy by lawsuit isn't cognitive dissonance. That's some grade A moralfiging my dude. Other then that, great video. Liked and subscribed
I don’t see how they got hit with invasion of privacy. They didn’t record the video or commission the recording of the video. Maybe they published it but I’m trying to remember as to whether or not the tape was already out in the public. As for the cancel culture thing. The guy that he was talking about acted to shut Gawker down because he didn’t like what they were saying. They didn’t lie on him or hogan and to be honest you can win almost any lawsuit if you’re willing to throw enough money at it. A multi million dollar company isn’t going to be able to compete with a committed multi-billionaire. Had Hulk been left to fund his own lawsuit, he likely would have failed. Also, it wasn’t just that they lost the lawsuit, the way in which they were sued was specifically designed to bankrupt gawker itself. Revenge is a dish best served cold so let’s not sanitize what happened and pretend that this wasn’t an act of revenge by someone that wanted to destroy gawker for a personal vendetta.
Im glad gawker is getting remembered as the scummy website it was instead of being a martyr. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone tried to point at gawkers fall as some sort of victimization of “journalists”.
It doesn't help now that a lot of the media companies that were the ones dragging Gawker in the past have come to emulate Gawker's exact model just without being egregious and directed at celebrities so much as a few specific individuals as a "Villain of the Week" rotating list. Stories aren't meticulously researched in order to give you the truth so much as the author's opinion on the matter. Want a good example? That Covington story a few years back. It's a mad rush to get clicks now across mainline news agencies, they prioritize that above all else. All of these anchors on networks that talked about journalistic integrity exercise almost none of it now. FFS they pen something that almost invariably ends up being fake but "a source close to the matter" is always the source, while there is something to be said of protecting your sources, at this point it feels like it's just an excuse for them to make up fanfiction and publish it.
@@impulse_xs It literally is protected. That's why it's a civil liability, not a criminal one. Free speech is only applicable to what the *government* can do to control your speech. The government cannot stop a company from publishing trash, this is the effect of free speech. Free speech has nothing to do with civil liability, ever. It's doesn't protect anyone in any case from civil liability. It also doesn't protect against criminal liability in ways many seem to think, in regards to things like trespassing where people think they're allowed to say whatever they want on private property and are somehow protected from the owners right to remove them at any time.
@@kiraPh1234k I just realized I accidentally replied to you instead of the OP. I was reiterating what you said and agree with you. Free speech is not related to civil liability.
"Taking anonymous tips" "Revealing sources" Jesus, a Journalist has 2 obligations: 1. Tell the truth. 2. Protect your sources. They failed at both. Painfully hilarious.
I never see anybody talk about how seamlessly dantavius made the transition from tik tok to yt. Truly some legendary shit and bro continues to make quality content
honestly, if Gawker turned into a Satire news site and *didn't* try to ruin people's lives with incriminating evidence that was unethically and maybe even illegally obtained, than I bet you they would be supported even up to today.
The way that lady busted out laughing while jimmy kimmel read the title of the article about him shows EXACTLY how the people employed there felt about others……It’s just all one big joke. What I would like to see is someone making their OWN forum where they “stalk” and out all of the employees that worked there and wrote those disgustingly false articles…..I would LOVE to see how they like having their personal business misconstrued and posted on the internet for all to see 🙄
as much as I hate Peter Thiel and agree that all the shit you called out about him are disgusting, Gawker was in the wrong and it’s good that they didn’t get away with it. he didn’t sue them for saying things he didn’t like, he sued them for outing him *which is very much illegal in the US* and then supported the lawsuit of someone who’s also a terrible person but it was about revenge porn. outing someone is specifically not included in free speech as it can have a serious impact on someone’s reputation (like a form of defamation except it’s not a lie) or it can put their safety in danger. I’m not concerned about Peter Thiel’s safety he can afford top security, but the law shouldn’t be applied based on how much of a dipshit the plaintif is. it’s a *good* thing that a media company can’t get away with violating the rights of people so they can make a quick buck. it’s *good* to set a legal precedent for someone to sue a media that outed them, it’s *good* that revenge porn is illegal regardless of how disgusting the victim is as a person. I don’t care about the people involved, but it’s vital that the legal system doesn’t not apply to anyone, because when we start cherrypicking who really deserves what rights the people most affected are always the most marginalized and the white collars get away with it. they still do, Peter Thiel is getting away with a lot, but at least the white collars at Gawker aren’t anymore.
There's a documentary about this on Netflix I watched and what's wild is that Gawker was clearly crossing all kinds of lines, and leaking a sex tape without someone's consent is like right next to revenge porn, but whatever you'd call that when a business does it. Everything that happened AFTER Hogan reasonably asking them to remove the tape? Went from totally reasonable to absolutely Batshit real quick right down to a Villain Billionaire
"Haha hey hulkamaniacs remember me? I'm at wrestlemania standing next to a black person to prove that I am 100% NOT RACIST. you got that right brother, I'm standing next to a black guy in public because I'm not racist!"
People have talked a lot about gawkers habitual invasion of people’s privacy I think it’s important to remember they did this to private citizens, not just public figures. They once uploaded the sex tape of some random college girl without her consent, and refused to take it down even after her father begged them too. Gawker deserved its fate and the fact that so many people act like it was some bastion of journalism boggles my mind.
Don't know if you just missed it this time, but a high pass filter at around 75 Hz would help mitigate any breath noises that slips through the cracks. I noticed a few in this video. Hope this helps!
The first amendment freedom of speech protects you from CRIMINAL prosecution for your speech, not CIVILIAN lawsuits for the content of your speech. If this case had been the federal or state authorities trying to shut down gawker they'd have been 100% in the right to cite the 1st amendment protections. However, a lawsuit filed by a civilian has entirely different laws to draw from, namely: foes the civilian rights to privacy outweigh the information made public by a "news" organization when said civilian never gave consent for the release of that information. And the courts clearly decided that the civilian rights to privacy were more important.
I'm dying knowing that Hollywood Hulk Hogan wears jeans and cut off tee shirts to bed his lover. I hope he also had the shades and the red and yellow bandana.
I’m a standup and I don’t like anyone who limits free speech. I’m also a lesbian and outing people for views against their will is sickening and dangerous. Glad Gawker got made an example of, they deserved it.
Freedom of Speech is not freedom of consequences, and what Gawker was doing wasn't even sharing an opinion people didn't like, it was a sickening violation of privacy for the sake of financial gain. The idea that some grimy news outlet should be allowed to publicly out people because "muh first amendment" is the kind of ideal I'd expect from someone in 50s-60s.
Ironic that those that choose to be gay align well with nazis that silenced opposition, they would have put you against the wall and ended that filth with a firing squad.
The irony of blaming Hogan for "destroying freedom of speech", it was destroyed long before that when the machine decided opinions that don't agree with the established narrative should be punished with censorship or bannings.
(at 6:40) as a gay man this disgusts and horrifies me. being gay can get you killed, i cant even begin to imagine how much more horrific it is to be a celeb and be forcefully outted like that my god.
Why the title? Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. It just means the government won’t jail you simply for speech. That’s it. A lawsuit, being ostracized, fired, a punch to the face-those consequences are entirely separate from freedom of speech. Freedom of the press actually applies more here but there are consequences there too. I always loved that Peter Thiel funded it. That’s America baby. He got his revenge, but through an entirely legitimate way. It wasn’t a billionaire taking out a business. The merits of the case were entirely legit and he just helped it happen. Go Peter.
14:55 And before THAT he was developing project called "LifeLog"... you know, to log every individual using the platform. What's weird is when LifeLog shut down (because of public backlash regarding privacy) in 2007 Facebook LAUNCHED the very same day. I'm sure there's no connection though, especially not to the "sea eye ayy" or "an Essay", it's probably just a coincidence...
I'm grateful that you put the ad right in the middle of Brook Hogan's music clip, so that.. and I never thought I would be saying this.. corporate jingles save us from that reproduced early 2000s Christina Aguilera atrocity, if but for 5 to 15 seconds.
1) Free speech is a human right, not an American right like the title indicates. 2) This is not a free speech issue as the US govt. is not trying to regulate speech by law. 3) Safe sex requires security cam.
I got excited for a second when he said the guy who owned the shut down site also owned Kotaku, i was really hoping it was also shut down, very disappointed 😞
I don't know why people bash Hulk Hogan. He's done a tone of charity work, auctioned off some of his own beginnings for charity, received a Humanitarian Award, and was always known as a generally nice guy. Screwing up is normal. Anybody says someone is a bad person for this or that without looking at the whole picture, probably isn't being honest with themself. He's anything but washed up. He had a very long and successful career. And successfully suing someone for doing something illegal isn't even remotely close to "destroy free speech". Free speech isn't all encompassing anyways, there are laws to be followed.
They did him dirty. I'm glad that Hulk Hogen got all that money. Even if he was a racist or not, that is NO reason whatsoever to discredit someone's history.
There was a reason why Hulk won his legal battle against them and they weren't shut down by a billionaire. It's because there's a difference between free speech and calls to action like a website that promotes stalking. There's also a difference between free speech and distribution of media that you do not own
I will never understand how having upwards of 100 MILLION dollars = "On the verge of bankruptcy" for people that don't primarily dabble in buying/selling buildings/plots of land or investing a very fucking large sum of money frequently. We're not taking about a business having those 100+ mil, but rather one singular person. Idk if everyone else is really, really fucjing bad at spending money reasonably, but it would literally take me more than 1 lifetime to use that money even if I did everything I wanted to. This is stupid
