![]() ![]() There are vague journalistic ethics floating around, but they aren?t laws, and certainly aren?t hard and fast rules to which all media adheres. There is good reason to question why media gets to decide what constitutes newsworthiness. On the one hand, it?s asked, ?why should the editorial decision of what is sufficiently newsworthy to be entitled to protection be left to the media? On the other, the question is, ?what happens if newsworthiness is left to the sensibilities of 12 nice people from Tampa? What this trial put at risk is the determination of what constitutes ?newsworthiness,? what is sufficiently worthy of protection under the free press clause of the First Amendment. Because someday someone’s not going to like something you said either.īut, still, to me the key thing is simply having a court tell a newspaper what is or is not “newsworthy.” As Scott Greenfield wrote in his post on the jury’s decision:īut that?s not the most serious problem this verdict creates. It’s the kind of thinking that wipes out the First Amendment because some people can come up with excuses for killing off just about any kind of content, as long as you say, “Well, that’s okay, it’s just shutting down content that is mean.” The issue with the First Amendment and free expression is that the whole reason we have it is to protect content we don’t like. First of all, that kind of thinking is dangerous in its own right. I’ve seen a bunch of people saying that this case isn’t that big a deal because the only thing it really restricts is publishing sex tapes, but it goes beyond that in several ways. That’s not the role of the courts, and that’s part of the reason why the First Amendment is so clear in barring regulations that restrict freedom of expression or the freedom of the press. Whether or not you or I think running the tape is appropriate, the fact remains that courts should never be determining if something is newsworthy. It’s kind of insane, in the first place, that there even was a trial at all on the question of “how newsworthy” the tape was. Hogan was made to look sympathetic and Gawker was made to look obnoxious and snarky.īut… the First Amendment remains. But given all that, it seemed pretty obvious how the jury would rule. It highlighted their snarkiness and dismissive attitudes. On top of that, much of Hogan’s lawyers’ case was built around making Gawker, its owner Nick Denton, and the reporter who wrote the article, AJ Daulerio, look as… obnoxious as possible. The judge limited Gawker’s defense options, blocking a few key ones, and even the judge (during jury selection) had expressed opinions that appeared to be distasteful of internet celebrity media coverage. Given how the trial played out, the jury result wasn’t much of a surprise. However, he was able to try again in state court, where it’s astounding that it even went to trial in the first place. Hogan (real name: Terry Bollea) had originally sued in federal court where it was more or less laughed out of court, mostly on First Amendment grounds. We hadn’t written about this case recently, as it was getting tons of press coverage elsewhere - but when we discussed it three years ago, when a Florida court first issued an injunction against Gawker, we noted the serious First Amendment issues here. Well, this isn’t necessarily a huge surprise, but Friday afternoon a Florida jury sided with Hulk Hogan in his lawsuit against Gawker, awarding him a fairly astounding $115 million (he had asked for $100 million) for posting a short clip of a Hogan sex tape along with an article about it. The focus of the coming proceedings will likely be whether the First Amendment should have precluded claims and whether Gawker got a fair trial.Mon, Mar 21st 2016 06:30am - Mike Masnick Gawker has already indicated it will appeal. A stunned-looking Nick Denton watched from the gallery and took a deep breath. In reaching its verdict, the jury tipped that scale towards privacy. You're balancing the right to make the speech versus privacy rights." "This case is unique … You're not going to condemn someone's right to engage in speech. ![]() "This is not about political speech," rebutted Turkel to the jury. "We need a First Amendment to protect what's controversial." ![]() "We don't need the First Amendment to protect what's popular," responded Gawker attorney Michael Sullivan in his own closing. "Do you think the media can do whatever they want?" asked Hogan's attorney Ken Turkel in closing arguments. Gawker founder Nick Denton talks with his legal team before Hulk Hogan testifies in court, St Petersburg, Florida March 8, 2016. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |