![]() Daulerio, who published the original post, would maintain that in the light of Hogan’s previous comments on the sexual encounter on the tape and the circulation of still images from the tape, the article was some sort of follow-up to earlier developments a story that was already in the public eye was simply being further developed. Whether or not the contents of the video were of public concern invokes the newsworthiness argument and comprised most of the proceedings. As Nick Denton explained above, the video didn’t seem blatantly offensive in the 2012 internet landscape, but this also extends to personal offense, such as emotional distress, which Hogan’s lawyers would have you believe he suffered. In Florida, where the suit was filed by Hogan, the outcome essentially hinged on “newsworthiness” (a term thrown around plentifully by both legal teams) invasion of privacy in this case was likely framed around “publication of private facts,” which is defined as4 “(1) the publication (2) of private facts (3) that are offensive and (4) are not of public concern.” Gawker’s defense wouldn’t even try to argue (1) or (2) - clearly, private facts were published. Interestingly enough, though, Gawker was instead sued for invasion of privacy - invading the privacy of a man who had his own reality show and whose only rivals for the amount of time spent on-screen are long-tenured newscasters. Legally, Gawker was protected from revenge porn and copyright issues (assuming the one-minute clip constituted fair use of the sex tape as intellectual property). ![]() The video was delivered to Gawker by an anonymous source for no compensation. Hogan and Clem, it was assumed by then-Gawker editor AJ Daulerio (and then later confirmed in depositions), were aware they were being filmed - Bubba the Love Sponge has made no secret of the fact that his house is wired for audio and video. ![]() The second, given recent developments around revenge porn laws, is harder to answer. The first questions an editor asks when contemplating publishing such risqué materials are always simple: is it true? Is it legal? The first question is relatively easy to answer, given the eminent familiarity of Hulk Hogan, one of the most recognizable American public figures of the past few decades (and to a lesser extent, Heather Clem, a public figure in her own right) - this video does indeed depict the previously-rumored liaison between Hogan and Clem. “Back in 2012, to the largely young and metropolitan audience of Gawker…the post was not particularly offensive,” but changing mores and building anxiety around the loss of privacy brought on by the internet makes the video, in hindsight, “seem like from an earlier and more licentious internet era,” Gawker founder Nick Denton has said in reaction to the verdict3. The commentary that accompanied the edited footage ruminated on the surprising normalcy of the sexual encounter - for once, Hulk was closer to Terry, his insane boasts laid bare as he looked just like the rest of us do when we have sex (some background: Hogan has a history of bragging about his sexual prowess at places such as the Howard Stern Show, even admitting that the encounter between himself and Heather was encouraged by Bubba the Love Sponge). In 2012, Gawker posted2 one minute of a thirty-minute sex tape (of which still images had already been published by other outlets) that appeared to show Hogan in an encounter with Heather Clem, the then-wife of his then-best friend Bubba the Love Sponge. The $140 million in damages recently awarded to Hulk Hogan1 (real name: Terry Bollea) for Gawker Media’s supposed invasion of his privacy underscores both the fluidity of the First Amendment in our age of over-sharing and the consequences of ethical decision making in a newsroom. (The random numbers hanging off of some words are the references below - sorry for the awkward merge of formats) I’m publishing it now because I’m bored and public figures’ reprehensible actions are even more visible in today’s climate) (This is a very-lightly edited paper written in 2016 for a News Ethics course. ![]() Hulk Hogan verdict and Gawker media: how public figures claim private protections ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |