Hulk v Gawk Ad Nauseum
Image via Dawn Embers -- and, ah, that's Stewart
Now that this stage of Hulk v Gawk is over, some folks have finally written some stuff worth reading.
Definitely check out Noah Feldman's take on Bloomberg View:
Hogan offered the highly original argument to the jury that his public persona and his private one could be divorced, so that his public statements were irrelevant. But although this argument may possibly say something about the inner life of celebrities, it isn’t one the First Amendment would allow. Public figures can’t escape their special constitutional status by saying that deep down, they’re really shy.
Denton himself just dropped a truth bomb at Gawker:
Hogan’s attorneys played this state circuit court trial as a popularity contest between the local celebrity and the miscreants from New York. It was as staged as a professional wrestling bout, with victory of the crowd favorite over the “deviant” bloggers—who were held responsible for internet pornography, the dangers of search engines to children, and the indecency of what Hogan’s attorney Ken Turkel described as “Fifth Avenue” publishers—ordained from the start. It was a classic obscenity trial disguised as a test of a person’s right to privacy.
As usual, Penenberg has an interesting point to consider, which he parses on Twitter:
The NYT chats up legal scholars on the matter and John Herrman whines annoyingly:
In the last few years, digital news sites with ambition — even the ones, like Gawker, that had originally hailed themselves as being anti-establishment — have undergone something of a self-correction. Vivid videos of random bedroom romps are out; a little bit of privacy is in.
I'll offer my view tomorrow.