*Heavy sigh.* There are almost no scenarios in which I want to talk about a Hulk Hogan sex tape, but such a scenario appeared this week. The Hulk Hogan v. Gawker Media lawsuit has important ramifications about the idea of First Amendment protections for journalists and even "journalists."
Hogan sued Gawker for publishing parts of a sex tape it received from an anonymous sender. After a jury trial in his hometown, Hogan won $140 million for an invasion of his privacy. Gawker plans to appeal. Normally, "plans to appeal" is a desperate cry of a losing team. However, Gawker is likely to win on the appeal and probably should.
A landmark case in journalism law is New York Times v. Sullivan. In short: Public figures have less privacy. Plaintiffs must prove that the accused either knew something was false and charged ahead anyway (doesn't apply to this case, since it was a video) or the invasion of privacy was not newsworthy. Is Hulk Hogan's sex life newsworthy? Here's where it gets a little complicated.
Hogan, a famous professional wrestler, often went on radio and television to discuss his sex life. He had a reality show. He is a celebrity, which falls into the category of public figure. Hogan's lawyers argued that there is a line between Hulk Hogan (character) and Terry Bollea (real name). In effect, they argued that what he says on radio and television interviews and reality television should be considered the character Hulk Hogan and not the person Terry Bollea.
Gawker's arguments are morally repugnant, but no less correct. Hogan's sexual braggadocio (ew!) made his sex life a public topic. It's like Hulk Hogan put a plate of sandwiches out for anyone, but Terry Bollea said not to eat them. Given that Hulk Hogan and Terry Bollea are the same person, that public-private split doesn't work. From the New Yorker: "Public figures can't escape their special constitutional status by saying that deep down, they're really shy."
Did Gawker have to show video? Hogan's lawyers said no, but in modern media, that's the only way to "prove" anything. Think Ray Rice or any given law enforcement "incident" with minorities (both for and against). The value is in the video. Is it gross to publish a sex tape of a celebrity? Yes. Most news organizations (journalists) would not publish it, while most tabloids ("journalists" with quotation marks) likely would.
Ultimately, this case is about what's moral and what's legal. Although Gawker was found guilty, they were likely found guilty by a jury that was morally outraged. Legally, there was nothing wrong with Gawker's actions. If there was, then freedom of the press to publish video and images debunking the statements of public figures is threatened. If Tom Hanks goes on TV telling everyone he loves dolphins, then if a video of him punching dolphins in his backyard pool is newsworthy. (Disclaimer: Tom Hanks does not punch dolphins.)
One last note: I think Hogan sued not because of the sex tape, but what else was on the sex tape. The pillow talk (seriously, EW!) included racists statements about black people that made headlines. The sex didn't cost Hogan millions of dollars and his status with the WWE; rather, it was the use of the N-word in a negative way that did. Although he can't put that particular cat back into the bag, this lawsuit is about winning as much money as he can to replace that lost income.
Bathroom Break
Think about what your bathroom habits are. I bet everyone has the same general answer: Do your business, wash your hands and leave (I hope). But North Carolina lawmakers think that LGBT people don't do that. I don't know what they think LGBT people do in the bathroom, but the idea that they're somehow sexual deviants while they take a dump fails logic. Lawmakers say this is about protecting children... from what?
Say you're a transgender female. That is, you were born a man, but have always identified as a woman. You've undergone some amount of gender reassignment (think: Caitlin Jenner). You have breasts and long hair and wear a dress. Which bathroom does it make more sense to use? The women's restroom, of course. She's going to do what everyone else does in the bathroom — Do her business, wash her hands and leave. Many states are now requiring this person to use the men's bathroom — a person that by all appearances and action is a woman. She'd feel more uncomfortable at this point using the men's restroom. I'm sure the men would be more uncomfortable, too.
How do you enforce such a law, anyway? Have a birth certificate gender scanner at the entrance to every bathroom? LGBT people aren't child molesters and aren't spying on others when they use the bathroom. Mostly, they just want to use the bathroom. If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, then just let them pee and poop with the ducks.
Summary Judgments
This has easily been the grossest entry on News Judgments I've had. Thank you for patiently and willingly reading about Hulk Hogan sex tapes and bathroom habits. • • • I don't usually read stories about shoes and endorsements, but here's a fascinating breakdown by True Hoop of how Steph Curry (last year's MVP) made the switch away from Nike and to Under Armour. You'd think Nike would have a) bothered to pronounce his name right and b) fixed the slides in their PowerPoint to the right name. You'd be wrong. • • • Good story by ESPN on how OU basketball coach Lon Kruger is the nicest, most boringly great coach. • • • The kids are sleeping better at night since they got tubes put in last week. And now I've jinxed it. Thanks, me. • • • Have a wonderful, renewing Easter!
No comments:
Post a Comment