My take on the beatdown that saw Hogan awarded $115 million (before punitive damages and appeals)…
Most of the time, I write about video game stuff. Today, I’m going to write my thoughts and opinions on the Gawker vs. Hogan case.
Or rather, the ramifications as I see them. For all the talk that this is a blow for the US Constitution and the First Amendment, I’ve long been of the view that such a rule can only protect your right to say what you want – which is a noble cause, of course. There will always be those who seek to censor the truth, or to bury it under a mountain of legalese. But along with rights come responsibilities – your freedom to say, or in the case of the press and the Fourth Estate to print and publish, what you want is counterbalanced with a responsibility to use that power for good, or for the greater good if you will.
A lot has been said about Hulk Hogan’s unfaithful indiscretion – which is morally reprehensible, of course. However, for the time being at least, cheating on your partner isn’t illegal under criminal law – it’s usually more a civil matter in a divorce between the parties involved. And Hogan, real name Terry Bollea, has suffered the consequences of his unfaithful behaviour. He is now divorced, having to pay his ex-wife a significant chunk of his personal fortune in the final divorce settlement. He lost his TV Show, and was unable to find work – though with the outpouring of support, that may be subject to change now. He lost friends too – though it seems the sex tape that was released was done so through a friend of his, and with friends like that, who needs enemies?
The press would like us to believe that Bollea’s win against Gawker Media, however, is damaging to the First Amendment – i.e. freedom of speech. To this I ask; who really thinks that with any serious intent?
Freedom of Speech is an important right to have – but it is nothing without some stringent limitations. After all, in the US, you have the right to bear arms; you don’t have the right to pull a piece out and just shoot someone without being arrested or shot yourself. You have the right to sleep with and marry whomever you want – with caveats, of course. The other party has to be able to consent, be that verbally or of a legal age to do so. Rights can only stretch to a point – usually to the point of infringing the rights of others – and after that, the courts and legal system move in. Where a criminal case isn’t appropriate, it invariably lands in a civil court instead. Either way, it is here where a person or organisation has to answer to and defend their actions to a judge and, typically, a jury comprised of members of the public. It is in such situations where you can often see where the line is drawn.
Speaking as a British Citizen, we’ve been there with our press – as much as we wish we hadn’t.
It began as a scandal of phone hacking, which was widespread within the press until not too long ago, and using exploits and loopholes in order to attain the location and private details and gossip about celebrities and other notable figures within the media. Whilst most private citizens couldn’t have given a damn or a half about the personal feelings of celebrities constantly living on the knifes edge of media attention (sorry about that, Hugh Grant), what did make an impact was the case of Milly Dowler. You may have heard of this case – it made international headlines, but in a nutshell; Milly Dowler was thirteen when she was murdered. The police believed she might still be alive, because messages were being checked and subsequently deleted from her mobile phone after being heard – which no doubt gave her parents hope, so in turn they left more messages as the police assumed it was no more a matter than that of a runaway.
What we learned eventually was that the messages were being checked by employees of a tabloid newspaper, The News of the World, who were using a back-door exploit to do so (this was in 2002 – some time before smartphones and encryption became commonplace). Milly Dowler had been dead for some time when her body was found. When the full scale of what happened came to light years later, you couldn’t have hidden the revulsion and contempt for the press that the general public had formulated. It was a truly international disgrace for our press – one of our darkest moments, indeed. But our press paid dearly for their collective hubris; many have served and some still are serving prison sentences, including officials and police officers who were paid by the press for information which should have remained private. Heavy fines and penalties were levied. Some cases are still to be heard. And the News of the World, once a hugely successful tabloid with a significant sales share, collapsed in on itself as it struggled to deal with the ramifications of what happened.
And of mobile phone security? You may want to ask Apple about that issue. Might be relevant about now.
Hulk Hogan may not be as sympathetic a case, of course. But he’s within his rights to have pursued a civil suit. Gawker may have been free to pay for the sex tape, and free to upload snippets of it for people to watch, but they are not exempt from a legal challenge over obtaining it and making it public. Mr. Bollea did not consent to the recording – that much is clear. And I hear consent is all the rage these days.
It is right, and should be right, that a person has the ability to seek civil damages from a press entity if their privacy is invaded – no matter what they’re doing (as long as it isn’t illegal, I’d assume). And it is right that Gawker should be allowed to attempt to defend its actions – and even appeal the decision. That is the process of things; that’s how it should work in an ideal situation, surely? Ultimately, a jury decides in the end. And a judge, on appeal, can reduce damages or overturn a verdict if the evidence is compelling enough to do so.
Gawker certainly hasn’t made it easy to defend itself, of course; from publishing the sex tape, to the outing of a private citizen last year who was employed by a rival network, to the smearing a female political opponent and the publishing of private e-mails of another political woman, to pushing “The Gawker Stalker”, a series of modified Google Maps which could have let those who had access to it to track the last known location of any celebrity they wanted, wherever they may be – and so much more besides. Even the most cursory glance at the comings and goings of the Gawker Network over the years makes for some sordid reading. It’s really hard to make the moral case for Gawker. But that is their problem – not the problem of the judge, the state, the government, or the First Amendment.
Maybe it’s my British ignorance showing, but I do not see this being a blow for the First Amendment – instead, I see it as an example of the principles of freedom in action and I am in awe of it – really America, bravo! Does this mean the press in the US has to be more mindful about whose careers they attempt to ruin? Sure, but I’d suggest that’s likely the worst outcome that will be derived from this whole situation – and I’m not sure that’s a bad result. Freedom requires some responsibility, after all – freedom without boundaries has a name, and that is anarchy. As we found out in the UK during the Leveson Inquiry, an anarchic press can be dangerous. Those afraid of a precedent being set might, may I suggest, be those who perhaps have the most need to change? I don’t know. It’s a thought!
Even when the plaintiff has made very poor choices morally and ethically – it is right they can seek damages if their civil liberties have been infringed in the process. Do I personally think Mr. Bollea deserves what could, after punitive damages are added, be up to $460 million? No, of course not, don’t be silly! That’d be an incredibly profitable nine seconds – hell, I’d willingly expose myself for a million. We all have our price… not that my bits are worth a million, though… *sigh*
But he should be entitled to some damages; and Gawker should be made to pay them. It’s clear in this case that Gawker Media overstepped their bounds, and they should suffer penalties for it. That’s right and proper. Just perhaps… not that excessive an amount, granted. Which is likely to be addressed in the appeal.
Of course, you’d think as a gamer that I’d celebrate the ideological and even literal destruction of Gawker. And part of me kind of is; but I believe that such cases shouldn’t destroy – but signify the need for attention and change. Destroying something with such force is impressive to behold short term; but it leaves little to no trace of what went wrong in the first place. As is usually the case, those who cannot or do not learn from history are those most doomed to repeat it.
And the press has a short enough memory as it is.
