Sex, celebrity and privacy
Terry Bollea, aka Hulk Hogan, 62, wearing his trademark black bandana and a massive silver cross, was filmed having consensual sex with the wife of a friend.
Hereās what you need to know about Hogan v. Gawker: From sex tapes & bogus āexpertsā to the future of online journalism
Hulk Hogan Gets His Python Measured
After years of legal wrangling, Hulk Hogan has finally taken Gawker to court. The meaning of journalism is on trial
The Florida trial happening this week pitting wrestler Hulk Hogan against the website Gawker may seem a bizarre venue for major questions of First Amendment rights and journalistic principles, but so be it. Journalism is a broad church, encompassing both the regal and the rancid, and sometimes youāre going to find yourself having broad constitutional arguments over some very questionable material. Thursdayās session featured one of the more laughably poor showings from a so-called āexpert witnessā that youāre likely to see, but before we get to that, some background.
At issue in the Hogan v. Gawker case is a 2012 post Gawker published showing a short excerpt of a sex tape someone made of HoganĀ having sex with someone elseās wife. The post reveled in the prurience of what it was publishing. The headline read, āEven for a Minute, Watching Hulk Hogan Have Sex in a Canopy Bed is Not Safe For Work but Watch it Anyway.ā Hogan promptly sued the site for $100 million.
Gawker owner gloated about traffic surge from Hulk sex tape
Gawker on trial: Hulk Hogan sex tapes ‘very amusing’ and ‘newsworthy’
From Gawkerās perspectiveāand, really, from the perspective of almost any journalist out thereāthis is a straightforward First Amendment case. Hulk Hogan is a public figure who has discussed his sex life in public. The sex tapeās existence was already public knowledge; screenshots had even been published. The post Gawker published about him was true. In legal terms, āpublic figureā plus ātrueā usually equals āletās go homeā where journalism is concerned. If you start putting curbs on that, you imperil the ability of all journalists to do their jobs. If Hogan was trying to win a defamation suit, he probably wouldnāt have a shot.
But Hogan is claiming an invasion of privacy, a hazier concept that leaves Gawker at significantly more risk. Hogan is banking on the jurors being so turned off by the gleeful scuzziness of the Gawker post that theyāll look past the basic First Amendment questions and focus on how gross it would feel to have a sex tape of yourself put on the internet.
(The ill-advised decision by former Gawker editor A.J. Daulerio, who wrote the post in question, to joke about sex tapes featuring children during his deposition wonāt help matters.)
The right of journalists to publish things with no particular news value is an essential component of the First Amendmentādumb speech needs to be protected too!ābut that can be an abstract thing to defend. (Full disclosure: I have written for Gawker a couple of times.) Human embarrassment, on the other hand, is universal, even if youāre someone as seemingly difficult to embarrass as Hulk Hogan.
And the jury …