Said Gawker mogul Nick Denton, testifying in the invasion-of-privacy case brought by the man whose public persona is Hulk Hogan, who seeks $100 million in damages for the sex video published on Gawker. The sex video "was our way to show a highly unusual encounter," Denton said.
"Let's talk for a lack of a better word, your philosophy on privacy," said [Hogan's lawyer Ken] Turkel, bringing up a 2013 interview... ("Gawker's Nick Denton Explains Why Invasion of Privacy Is Positive for Society") as well as another interview with Playboy where Denton addressed privacy by stating, "I don’t think people give a fuck, actually" and "Every infringement of privacy is sort of liberating."
Denton [said] "I think being our true selves, being open to our colleagues and friends and family, my personal view is that we are happier as a result.... [The sex video] was our way to show a highly unusual encounter."... Denton was asked to read salacious passages from Gawker's Hogan story in the "most humanizing way possible." And so, with a British accent, as gently as Denton could muster, the jury heard a play-by-play of Hogan having sex, lines like: "Then we watch Hulk stand up and clumsily attempt to roll a condom on to his erect penis which, even if it has been ravaged by steroids and middle-age, still appears to be the size of a thermos you'd find in a child's lunchbox."
पोस्ट्स
३९ टिप्पण्या:
We want to know Hulk's finger size. Why are they hiding it?
(Insert picture message here)
There should be an academy award for Self-Serving Puerile Pabulum Posing as the Public Interest, and Nick Denton should be its first recipient.
So libruls are childrun.
appears to be the size of a thermos you'd find in a child's lunchbox."
Someone was describing a pornstar to me once and said, "It looked like a baby's arm holding an apple".
Their big problem is that their behavior when celeb nudes leaked last year and the Hogan sex tape were WILDLY different. No possible claim of following a policy.
Did ever tell you the one about the plaid dildo...
No, pictures are essential when they are worth a thousand words. If the most clear, concise, effective way to make a point is to show a picture or video, you should show it: That's why Harris v. Scott included the video of the chase at issue, and it's why Judges Posner and Sykes have occasionally included maps an photographs in their opinions. But in most cases, the most clear, concise, effective way to make a point is to write clearly, concisely, and effectively.
I like the story that I put up on my website that shows Denton screwing his boyfriend with his tiny little micropenis, the size of a chicklet. THen after he inserted his penis in his boyfriends rectum his boyfriend turned to him and said "is it in yet?"
inquiring minds want to know.
I think David Attenborough's nature documentaries pander to lowlifes so I seriously doubt I'd have gotten on that jury.
Althouse, how can you post this without an accompanying illustration? As an Internet Generation reader, I'm stymied, just positively stymied.
Can I have some Brain Bleach please?
Rapist to victim: You wanted it as bad as I did.
Can they both lose? Hogan has no business claiming invasion of privacy because Gawker showed something he regularly brags about. But it's Gawker, so it would be nice if they could lose too.
No privacy. No stalls. No walls. No secrets. I wonder how many people would join.
I had hoped this unfortunate topic would blow by and barely ripple the Althouse Blog and its followers.
Gossip-mongering is to journalism as quackery is to medicine, and gossip-mongering on the web is even more so. Therefore I hope "Hulk Hogan" wins his suit. The resultant bankruptcy of Gawker should be welcomed by everyone with an interest in decency... On the other hand, anyone who voluntarily participates in creating a sex tape deserves to be humiliated by its dissemination.
A plague a' both your houses!
I want Gawker to disappear as much as the next guy, but historically the courts have been very pro-media. Even if the local jury sides with Hulk Hogan, Gawker has a decent shot at winning on appeal. I believe Gawker pushes the envelope like this because Gawker wants to be a defendant in a case like this. Gawker wants to be a First Amendment hero. Like Hustler, but cleaner and more political.
I mean, it's sort of a ridiculous argument. Let's say a celebrity says something in an interview about how he likes to shave in the shower. Has he given up any right to privacy with respect to what he does in the shower? Or is only with respect to him shaving in the shower? Does that mean Gawker can publish an illegally recorded video of that celebrity shaving in the shower? Does it make a difference if the video also shows the celebrity's penis?
OK, maybe that's a distinguishable fact pattern.
If you don't have a right to privacy while having sex, when do you have such a right? During gall bladder surgery?
Ugh. Piers Morgan, Gordon Ramsay, Nick Denton. Recently, it seems, America has been obsesses with importing insufferable British pricks.
Piers Morgan, Gordon Ramsay, Nick Denton. Recently, it seems, America has been obsesses with importing insufferable British pricks.
The first and only time I watched Gordon Ramsay I wondered what kind of terms those wannabe chefs agreed to in the release forms they signed (I hereby license Gordon Ramsay and his assigns to public humiliate me on national television...) Without some kind of ironclad contract that drunken dwarf would have long since received a frying pan facelift.
"The Internet is a hybrid of television and print," responded Denton. "And in order to communicate to a younger audience, they expect ..."
Except, the Internet is not a hybrid of television and print. Because, broadcast and publishing are are one-way media, whereas the Internet is interactive. Which means that it is not necessarily about "communicating to" your audience so much as "communicating with your audience.
Perhaps Denton's failure to appreciate the difference between "talking to" and "talking with" is related to his apparent inability to acknowledge the difference between waiving one's privacy rights as compared with simply having these expropriated?
Nude pictures of Jennifer Lawrence weren't newsworthy, though, it was a MORAL CRIME to show 'em. The nude video of Erin Andrews wasn't newsworthy (even though its creation and dissemination was major news) and it was a MORAL CRIME to show it.
Gawker is full of shit and I hope Terry "Hulk" Hogan burns them to the ground.
Notice, by the way, that once again the only analytical tool this Leftist asshole can use is "hypocrisy." That's his entire excuse! His argument is that he was right to publish the tape because it exposed Hogan's hypocrisy. He says he didn't publish nude pictures of Jennifer Lawrence (et al.) because she wasn't being hypocritical. That is his entire justification and MANY people agree!
Now in Denton's case even this "defense" is full of shit--in what way was Kate Middleton sufficiently hypocritical that showing topless pictures of her was justified?--but it's typical of the lack of critical thought that most Media people (and let's be honest, they're all hard Leftists) engage in.
Can they both lose? Hogan has no business claiming invasion of privacy because Gawker showed something he regularly brags about
He bragged that he was recorded, without his knowledge, fucking his friend's wife with his blessing? I missed that. And then he requested they removed it and they refused. Then his lawyer requested and they still refused.
Hogan is 100% the victim here. If he were a woman, the "he has no business claiming invasion of privacy" would be laughed at.
On the other hand, anyone who voluntarily participates in creating a sex tape deserves to be humiliated by its dissemination.
He didn't voluntarily do anything in regards to the tape. It was taped by Clem without Hogan's knowledge.
I mean, it's sort of a ridiculous argument. Let's say a celebrity says something in an interview about how he likes to shave in the shower. Has he given up any right to privacy with respect to what he does in the shower? Or is only with respect to him shaving in the shower? Does that mean Gawker can publish an illegally recorded video of that celebrity shaving in the shower? Does it make a difference if the video also shows the celebrity's penis?
Indeed. This whole "He deserved it" nonsense is part of a BRUTAL double standard for men and women in cases like this.
Jennifer Lawrence has mentioned having a boyfriend in the past. I guess Gawker was wrong to remove her nude photos she said she took for him.
EVERYBODY should be rooting for Hogan to win this case. Look back at Gawker's behavior during this. It's indefensible.
I want Gawker to disappear as much as the next guy, but historically the courts have been very pro-media. Even if the local jury sides with Hulk Hogan, Gawker has a decent shot at winning on appeal.
I don't see how. I question how it can be viewed as remotely news-worthy. And, again, these same folks actively removed all of the nude celeb leak pics from last year. They cannot claim that they always do what they did to Hogan. There is considerable evidence of malice.
Related: How Did This Get Made: Mr. Nanny
How Did This Get Made: No Holds Barred
Notice, by the way, that once again the only analytical tool this Leftist asshole can use is "hypocrisy." That's his entire excuse! His argument is that he was right to publish the tape because it exposed Hogan's hypocrisy.
It's like they cannot differentiate a character from the person. Hulk Hogan was a wrestling character. Terry Bollea is a man. They aren't the same thing. Hogan is a gimmick that has been wildly successful (God knows how because "good guy" Hulk Hogan tends to be a total dick)...but it's no more real than asking Kelsey Grammer to psychoanalyze you since he played a shrink for years on TV.
He says he didn't publish nude pictures of Jennifer Lawrence (et al.) because she wasn't being hypocritical. That is his entire justification and MANY people agree!
They agree because it is not a big deal when it harms a man. We have it coming or something.
Quaestor said...The first and only time I watched Gordon Ramsay I wondered what kind of terms those wannabe chefs agreed to in the release forms they signed (I hereby license Gordon Ramsay and his assigns to public humiliate me on national television...) Without some kind of ironclad contract that drunken dwarf would have long since received a frying pan facelift.
Mitchell & Webb - Kitchen Nightmares
None of this matters because Hogan is guilty of the unpardonable sin: using the word nigger.
And that Gawker leaked that is further evidence of malice on their part.
It's almost tragic because Hogan is almost incapable of telling the truth about his pro wrestling career. He embellishes basically everything to a degree that is almost absurd. Even when he KNOWS better, he will still lie about it.
And he's the most honest person in the case.
'Privacy' was the entire justification for Roe v Wade. How can it not apply here?
Wayne Martin:
No one was aborted and/or cannibalized.
Pro-choice is a doctrine of selective principles, that neither require nor invite reconciliation.
Wayne Martin said...
'Privacy' was the entire justification for Roe v Wade. How can it not apply here?
There is a fundamental difference between what the government is prohibited from doing and what private individuals are prohibited from doing.
( and the entire justification for Roe v Wade was crap )
I don't watch him, but I understand Gordon Ramsay can be a really nice guy. The shows where you see him melt down are typically with professional chefs and/or professional chef wannabes who are failing on a fundamental level. I wouldn't handle it the same way, but frankly his targets tend to deserve it. If you put him on a show with non-professionals, he tends to be very helpful and supportive. Or so I'm told. He's a sort of culinary drill sergeant.
I can think of reasons why a non-consented sex tape should be publicized. So was Gawker trying to stop an alien invasion? Those grays can only be appeased with some pro wrestling love.
Blogger damikesc said...
And that Gawker leaked that is further evidence of malice on their part.
It's almost tragic because Hogan is almost incapable of telling the truth about his pro wrestling career. He embellishes basically everything to a degree that is almost absurd. Even when he KNOWS better, he will still lie about it.
---------------------------------------------
How can one 'lie' about a pro wrestling career? LOL
How can one lie? Oh, he does it many ways. Claiming he was worried about a shoot (a non-worked match) at a major event. Crowds he drew. Claims that he helped make young guys stars when he did the opposite backstage.
If you hear him discuss his career, little of what he says will have any semblance in reality. In a business full of bullshitters, he is the king BS artist.
Static Ping:
If you watch Ramsay's "Kitchen Nightmares", you'll be amazed at how sensitive and supportive he is in terms of dealing with family dynamics that get in the way of running the restaurant. I was gobsmacked - did not expect to see behavior like that from him.
This entire post was so far beneath the standards I expect from this blog that I expect Laslo hid from it in shame.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा