He appealed to the courts and sought compensation for personal damages. One might even say Hulk Hogan did precisely what the free market prescribes. And even proponents of free speech are consumers who don't necessarily want their newspapers, blogosphere and TV news crammed with sensationalism and libel. I get it: Gawker made The National Enquirer look like The Economist. While Bollea does not raise the specter of a "clear and present danger," this " newsworthiness" exception to the First Amendment is proving to be no less arbitrary.īasically, it appears that once a journalist crosses the Rubicon from "newsworthy" into "sensationalism," the First Amendment vanishes. Oliver Wendell Holmes called this a "clear and present danger," after wringing his hands about imaginary men shouting fire in imaginary theaters.) He was convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 for handing out anti-war pamphlets, encouraging people to oppose the draft and World War I. (Charles Schenck never shouted fire in any theater. United States probably die a little inside every time we hear this tripe. Then again, those of us who have read Schenck v. Slippery Slopesĭespite grave anxiety within the media over Bollea's constitutional implications, any layman searching for an excuse to celebrate Gawker's demise need only cite the obligatory canard that not all speech is protected: Because, well, free speech and all that jazz, but you can't shout fire in a crowded theater! The successful suit has already inspired similar legal threats by another star: Melania Trump, who considers herself to be harmed by "hurtful," "damaging" and "false" reporting by other news organizations. Then, on August 18, it was announced that would cease operations.Īnd there seems to have been little love lost for the tawdry gossip site, which trolled the private lives of celebrities and politicians for over a decade. Gawker was ultimately forced to declare bankruptcy, and its sale to Univision was quickly approved. In May, Gawker was denied its motion for a new trial or reduction in damages. Hogan argued that Gawker's publication of a sex tape was an invasion of privacy, having no "news" value.Īs I write, Gawker Media appears to be in a financial tailspin. In March, a Florida jury awarded Hulk Hogan a plum $140 million in his suit against ( Bollea v. This article first appeared on the Foundation for Economic Education site.įorget for a moment the question about whether celebrity sex tapes are "newsworthy." The real question is whether we want juries determining what is and what is not "newsworthy."
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |