The Strange Story of Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and Peter Thiel

[+ saminseattle]

I must admit that I haven’t followed all the details, but the gist of it seems to be that Hulk Hogan’s purported friend, who goes by “Bubba the Love Sponge,” invited him over to have sex with his wife. “Bubba” secretly recorded their encounter without the Hulk’s knowledge and somehow the video ended up being put out on the Internet via the Gawker website. Millions of people watched the salacious excerpts. Gawker initially refused to take down the video, even after a lawsuit was filed against them. But the lawsuit was ultimately successful (although I believe appeals are pending) and a verdict of $140 million was recently entered against Gawker, which is apparently now up for sale given this rather devastating result.

 

The latest development in this rather strange saga is the disclosure that the lawsuit was funded by Peter Thiel, a Silicon Valley billionaire who co-founded paypal, and was apparently upset that Gawker outed him as gay about 10 years ago. Incidentally, Gawker founder Nick Denton is also gay, as is the person who wrote the article outing Thiel. And of course, regular readers will recall that Gawker also revealed the hiring of “rentboy” Brodie Sinclair by a married Conde Nast executive. http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/escort-outs-conde-nasts-cfo.106197/

 

The whole episode seems to raise a lot of questions that I would think forum-readers would be interested in, but there’s been relatively little discussion about it. Personally, I’m quite torn about the whole thing. On the one hand, I think privacy is incredibly important, and it does not seem right that someone could secretly record a sexual encounter without all the participants’ consent, publish the video on the Internet for everyone to see, potentially forever, and face no consequences for doing so. I am troubled by "revenge porn" for the same reason. On the other hand, I also think the First Amendment, press freedom, and free speech on the Internet is incredibly important. I’m sure there are many people that would like to shut down not just websites like Rentboy, but also sites like this one, and it could really limit an open discussion if people were afraid that something they said could be perceived as breaking some law or violating someone’s privacy. Here are some more articles about the case and its implications:

 

*http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html

*http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/what-hulk-hogans-gawker-lawsuit-means-for-our-privacy.html

*http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/business/media/drawing-the-line-on-gossip-after-the-gawker-trial.html

*http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/05/us/hulk-hogan-vs-gawker-suit-over-sex-tape.html?version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click

 

What do you all think?

[marylander1940]

I must admit that I haven’t followed all the details, but the gist of it seems to be that Hulk Hogan’s purported friend, who goes by “Bubba the Love Sponge,” invited him over to have sex with his wife. “Bubba” secretly recorded their encounter without the Hulk’s knowledge and somehow the video ended up being put out on the Internet via the Gawker website. Millions of people watched the salacious excerpts. Gawker initially refused to take down the video, even after a lawsuit was filed against them. But the lawsuit was ultimately successful (although I believe appeals are pending) and a verdict of $140 million was recently entered against Gawker, which is apparently now up for sale given this rather devastating result.

 

The latest development in this rather strange saga is the disclosure that the lawsuit was funded by Peter Thiel, a Silicon Valley billionaire who co-founded paypal, and was apparently upset that Gawker outed him as gay about 10 years ago. Incidentally, Gawker founder Nick Denton is also gay, as is the person who wrote the article outing Thiel. And of course, regular readers will recall that Gawker also revealed the hiring of “rentboy” Brodie Sinclair by a married Conde Nast executive. http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/escort-outs-conde-nasts-cfo.106197/

 

The whole episode seems to raise a lot of questions that I would think forum-readers would be interested in, but there’s been relatively little discussion about it. Personally, I’m quite torn about the whole thing. On the one hand, I think privacy is incredibly important, and it does not seem right that someone could secretly record a sexual encounter without all the participants’ consent, publish the video on the Internet for everyone to see, potentially forever, and face no consequences for doing so. I am troubled by "revenge porn" for the same reason. On the other hand, I also think the First Amendment, press freedom, and free speech on the Internet is incredibly important. I’m sure there are many people that would like to shut down not just websites like Rentboy, but also sites like this one, and it could really limit an open discussion if people were afraid that something they said could be perceived as breaking some law or violating someone’s privacy. Here are some more articles about the case and its implications:

 

*http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html

*http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/what-hulk-hogans-gawker-lawsuit-means-for-our-privacy.html

*http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/business/media/drawing-the-line-on-gossip-after-the-gawker-trial.html

*http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/05/us/hulk-hogan-vs-gawker-suit-over-sex-tape.html?version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click

 

What do you all think?

 

http://i.imgur.com/k3z47F5.gif

 

[+ WmClarke]

The First Amendment has no quality control; it allows sleaze. Sometimes the sleaze goes too far. Gawker got what they deserve.

 

Celebs, sadly, have no right to privacy. Sorry, Hulkster.

[+ saminseattle]

An update: Gawker has filed for bankruptcy.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/business/media/gawker-bankruptcy-sale.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

I suspect this will deter people from putting out embarrassing information or images on the Internet for everyone to see, even if the information and images are true. But is this a good or bad thing?

[+ Gar1eth]

The First Amendment has no quality control; it allows sleaze. Sometimes the sleaze goes too far. Gawker got what they deserve.

 

Celebs, sadly, have no right to privacy. Sorry, Hulkster.

 

I'll have to disagree. He has no right to privacy in his public persona. But this was private time. Even people in the public have a right to expect that their legal sex acts remain private.

 

Gman

[+ WmClarke]

I'll have to disagree. He has no right to privacy in his public persona. But this was private time. Even people in the public have a right to expect that their legal sex acts remain private.

 

Gman

Not in the legal realm in the US. People published and made money off Pamela Andrson & Tommy Lee's sex tape--which they never authorized the release of.

[+ Gar1eth]

Not in the legal realm in the US. People published and made money off Pamela Andrson & Tommy Lee's sex tape--which they never authorized the release of.

 

Did they try to sue?

 

Gman

[+ SundayZip]

Gawker, in my opinion, is tabloid trash. The legal right to publish information about a person in the public realm does not make it ethical journalism. I always thought that decent journalism was supposed to balance the public need for information against harm to an individual -- even individuals in the public realm. Publishing news should not be a license to invade personal privacy just to feed lurid curiosity. I say good riddance to Gawker.

[+ WmClarke]

Did they try to sue?

 

Gman

I believe they did--and lost because they were "public figures." Really despicable reasoning but there it is.

[LookingAround]

An update: Gawker has filed for bankruptcy.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/business/media/gawker-bankruptcy-sale.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

I suspect this will deter people from putting out embarrassing information or images on the Internet for everyone to see, even if the information and images are true. But is this a good or bad thing?

 

Good thing.

[+ VeryHappyCustomer]

...regular readers will recall that Gawker also revealed the hiring of “rentboy” Brodie Sinclair by a married Conde Nast executive. http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/escort-outs-conde-nasts-cfo.106197/

 

This still makes me angry. Denton may be gay, but he showed no compassion for Brodie Sinclair's victim. Thank you, Peter Thiel, for making the world a better place!

[+ quoththeraven]

Not in the legal realm in the US. People published and made money off Pamela Andrson & Tommy Lee's sex tape--which they never authorized the release of.

 

Hogan won on a right to privacy claim, so to say there is no right to privacy is wrong. Public figure status is only relevant to defamation suits. But right of privacy claims vary from state to state.

 

As for the question: just because we don't like Gawker doesn't make this unproblematic, as this article about an expensive defamation suit against Mother Jones regarding the characterization of a well-heeled conservative businessman's ad disclosing a local reporter's sexual orientation in the course of attacking his reporting about a pedophile in Boy Scout leadership demonstrates. Mother Jones won, but the suit cost time and millions of dollars to defend.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit

 

In other words, this is a shoe-on-the-other foot scenario without any secret funding of lawsuits. See this Twitter thread, which discusses the connection between this case and Thiel and Gawker.

 

The following about sums up my feelings on this:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/25/peter-thiel-gawker-and-why-all-of-this-could-matter-during-a-trump-presidency/

 

"I, for one, don’t dispute Peter Thiel’s right to back Hogan’s case, grimmelm: 2/2 “… simply think he’s an asshole for doing it, and a coward for having attempted to do it in secret.”

(quoting @daringfireball).

 

As @sarahjeong says in the other Twitter thread linked above, the only remedy is to not have these disparities of income.

[+ saminseattle]

The NYTimes has just published an editorial on these issues by Mr. Thiel. While I certainly don’t support his choice for President, I think he’s absolutely right that controversies about sexual privacy and the Internet are far from over. As he points out:

 

“Unfortunately, lurid interest in gay life isn’t a thing of the past. Last week, The Daily Beast published an article that effectively outed gay Olympic athletes, treating their sexuality as a curiosity for the sake of internet clicks.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/opinion/peter-thiel-the-online-privacy-debate-wont-end-with-gawker.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

 

Daddy also highlighted this issue last Thursday, by linking to this article: http://www.advocate.com/media/2016/8/11/daily-beasts-grindr-baiting-worst-invasion-privacy. In the editorial, Mr. Thiel also mentions the Brodie Sinclair situation I referred to above, although he glossed over the “escort” aspect of the story.

 

Personally, I remain conflicted about these issues. The constant erosion of privacy expectations is very troubling. At the same time, I’m not sure that I trust the House of Representatives to safeguard our “intimate privacy.” In any event, the editorial is worth reading: I think it’s important, for this community especially, to think about these issues and stay abreast of what’s happening.

[WolfRamNHard]

Gawker, in my opinion, is tabloid trash. The legal right to publish information about a person in the public realm does not make it ethical journalism. I always thought that decent journalism was supposed to balance the public need for information against harm to an individual -- even individuals in the public realm. Publishing news should not be a license to invade personal privacy just to feed lurid curiosity. I say good riddance to Gawker.

 

I happen to like Gawker quite a bit. Some of their writers are quite sharp, but mostly I read it because the comments on there are my daily source of wit.

 

I don't agree with how they managed the Geithner fiasco (he should not have been outed like that). On the other hand I have no sympathy for Hulk Hogan, and I do wish that an appeals court would smack him down hard. Peter Thiel is a freaky weirdo (above and beyond his support for The Donald).

 

Thankfully, Gawker is not going away. I hear they are being bought over by Univision. Hopefully there won't be any significant changes.