Page 21 - Gawker

Gawker had won the first round, before a federal judge, but

its chances before a jury were, given Thiel’s subsidy,
considerably weaker. There Gawker would have to persuade

ordinary people that some legitimate purpose was served

by Bollea’s public humiliation. The question became one of

whether Gawker violated Hogan’s right to privacy.

The key issue in a right-to-privacy lawsuit like Hogan’s is

whether the published material should be treated as news.

Director “Brian Knappenberger (documentary, Nobody Speak:

Trials of the Free Press), also saw something more troubling

beneath the surface. The case was also a fight against the

freedom of the press. Regardless of what you may think of

Gawker's content, ruling against the site in this case could open

the floodgates for silencing other media whenever it runs a

negative story on a person with influence.” (5). However, when
asked: “A language question for you: Why call it a sex tape if

Hulk Hogan didn’t agree to its release? Isn’t it really revenge
porn? Do you see this type of violation as fundamentally

different from something like the celebrity photo hack?” he

replied “The case I think the Gawker side would make there

is that, Hulk Hogan is a public figure that spent a lot of time

talking about his sex life. And his sex life was a part of his

character.” “So I think their case was, essentially, that Hulk

Hogan himself had made it news. That seems very different

than a revenge porn incident.” (2)