Gawker Media has long been one of Gamergate’s favorite villains, and so it’s hardly surprising to see Gamergaters celebrating Gawker’s legal defeat at the hands of former wrestler and very large human Hulk Hogan.
It was a doozy of a defeat, with Gawker Media ordered to pay $115 million to Hogan for posting a sex tape featuring the ex-wrestler and the wife of a friend whose legal name is Bubba the Love Sponge.
On Twitter, Gamergaters cackled like the cartoon villains they are, posting schadenfreude-laden photoshops, ridiculous gifs, rape jokes, and the occasional request that Gawker employees die.
https://twitter.com/ArsCortica/status/710963609678041088
https://twitter.com/x_schilling/status/710969380931248128
>mfw #Gawker has to pay 450 dollaridoos of punitive damages to Hulk Hogan#Gamergate pic.twitter.com/0mwp0hclAm
— Suicide Vest Bear Advocate 🐺 Kusanagi (@KusanagiFurfag) March 20, 2016
RIP Gawker.#GamerGate pic.twitter.com/eUToAHsZaW
— Man of Creation (@Prototype_No_07) March 18, 2016
https://twitter.com/BobDude15/status/710965368068509696
https://twitter.com/Orlando_223_/status/710993022155100160
One Tweeter brought back this familiar face.
While the celebration comes as no shock, what is a little surprising is how many Gamergaters have leapt up to claim some kind of credit for a legal victory they had absolutely nothing to do with.
https://twitter.com/Provaporous2/status/710978097135362048
Death to Gawker. #gamergate just claimed a victory against a major opponent that slandered the movement for years.
— Death To Gawker (@flowerpower2025) March 19, 2016
Hulk Hogan just effectively bankrupted the sleezy clickbait site Gawker. Thats what you get for messing with #gamergate
— Death To Gawker (@flowerpower2025) March 19, 2016
https://twitter.com/RedbobBackup/status/711058483248893952
One Gamergate critic summed up the situation with a handy pic:
https://twitter.com/ZombieAteMySock/status/711100188249735168
There were, to be sure, some Gamergaters who were willing to share credit with Hogan, seeing Gamergate as part of a some sort of Media Ethics tag-team.
#Gamergate hurt Gawker. Hulk Hogan finished the job. 115 million dollars fine for commercializing being hypocritical asshole and crybully.
— Erik Wedin (@Aktivarum) March 19, 2016
https://twitter.com/ZanbonSen/status/710989035460648961
Well, GG Gawker.
But #gamergate won, in probably the best tag team to tackle ethics in journalism.— 🔮Leonardo De Pinchy 🦀✨ (@CloudyXiongMao) March 18, 2016
#Gawker dead
Reputation of corrupt journos destroyed.
Gaming journalism changed forever.#gamergate are pretty annoying antagonists huh?— 🔮Leonardo De Pinchy 🦀✨ (@CloudyXiongMao) March 19, 2016
Demonstrating the keen sense of ethics she has evidently learned from Gamergate, Minou took a moment off from her celebration to suggest to one games journalist and longtime Gamergate target that he kill himself.
A simple solution, try bleach. @Vahn16
— 🔮Leonardo De Pinchy 🦀✨ (@CloudyXiongMao) March 18, 2016
One Gamergater and taco enthusiast offered a rather different take on the relationship between Hogan and the heroes of Gamergate.
https://twitter.com/TerrorTacos/status/711039324725374976
Obviously, there are numerous Gamergaters who are sufficiently connected with reality that they can see that, no, they had nothing whatsoever to do with Hogan’s lawsuit, or the verdict, or the massive judgement. But the victory-claimers had retorts ready for these unbelievers.
https://twitter.com/osc4x/status/711279565314891776
https://twitter.com/ArtivousIra/status/711133741943562240
But wherever they stood on the issue of just who was responsible for this glorious victory, Gamergaters seemed to agree on one thing: Gawker employees deserve to suffer for the poor decisions of their bosses.
https://twitter.com/HereticOfEthics/status/711091450763563008
I've felt a disturbance in the Force…as if Gawker employees were crying out in fear of this man https://t.co/UX0id5PF8Z #Gamergate
— Hyperknight Drifter (@hyperknight4077) March 19, 2016
Other Gamergate ethicists suggested that Gawkerites just go ahead and kill themselves.
Are you working for Gawker et al?
Don't forget to put this on your speedial.
Save yourself.#hulkvsgawk#GamerGate pic.twitter.com/der5sq4DWa— The Ivalician Heretic (@ramzaruglia) March 19, 2016
https://twitter.com/AgoristArtist/status/711006031413837824
https://twitter.com/Bobcat665/status/711002301813510144
It’s about ethics in telling journalists to kill themselves.
I hardly need to point out some of the blatant hypocrisies here. Gamergate wants Gawker Media destroyed over a sex tape. Meanwhile, Gamergaters posted nude photos of Zoe Quinn all across the internet; they also sent them directly to Quinn’s relatives. Gamergate did much of its early organizing on 4chan, before moving on to 8chan; both sites have reputations as havens for the trading of child porn.
Reddit, which hosts gamergate hub Kotaku in Action, has also been used to distribute child porn and stolen celebrity nudes; the site’s admins were glacially slow in taking action against both problems. Yes, Gawker’s posting of Hulk Hogan’s sex tape was sleazy and wrong and damaging. But 4chan, 8chan, and Reddit have done far more damage to a much larger group of victims. If Gamergate were as concerned as they pretend to be about “revenge porn” — or any kind of porn that is made and/or distributed without the consent of those in it — why are they not trying to shut down — or radically reform — Reddit or 8chan?
That is of course a rhetorical question.
Let me leave you with the creepiest tweet I ran across while writing this post. Once again, here’s Milo:
DADDIES pic.twitter.com/W9dW76s2Kw
— Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) March 19, 2016
EDIT: I removed several tweets that turned out to be from a troll account.
EDIT 2: And one more.
@dslucia
It’s weird, though, because some times they will say things like “I’m triggered by trigger warnings” as, I’m guessing, an attempt to mock “SJWs”, but it really looks like they are upset by trigger warning. Like the thought that someone might disagree with them, or be bothered by something they’re not is so deeply disturbing to these people. It would be hilarious is if it wasn’t for real.
@portlantonio
I’m on the fence about it. As I never said anything about how Gawker should have lost, I just said a possible silver lining was it helping shut down revenge porn shit.
Of course, I also feel like the fact that celebrities have to just give up their privacy in any matter is just completely fucked up.
@katz
I don’t think the Jennifer Lawrence issue is the same as Terry Bollea. For one thing, Bollea has his “persona” as Hulk Hogan, a guy who relentlessly boasted about his sexual exploits. He discussed the affair with Howard Stern and waffled about the existence of a sex tape. He made his sex life a public issue as Hulk Hogan. At that point he’s diminishing his zone of privacy. It’s the same reasoning used by a federal judge who unsealed Bill Cosby’s decade old deposition — Cosby made himself into a public moralizer and, therefore, his comments about giving Quaaludes to women and having numerous affairs.
Unfortunately now Hulk Hogan, as soon as a fraction of his sex tape is posted, is trying to backtrack. Now he’s Terry Bollea the man, not Hulk Hogan the exaggerated character, and has a right to privacy that encompasses the very sex life he boasted about. It’s a little hard to explain, but I’ll link to Nick Gillespie of Reason because constitutional law makes strange bedfellows, apparently.
Suffice it to say, JLaw put herself in no such position. Even Gawker differentiated between the two situations, refusing to post the hacked nudes on its website when writing about the story. Ultimately it’s a balancing act here, and sometimes it’s difficult to know when to air on the side of privacy or freedom of speech/the press. Still more sympathetic to the free speech crowd here, even if one views Gawker’s actions as morally reprehensible.
@shartheheretic: Florida author Tim Dorsey’s fictionalized version of Bubba is Boris the Hateful Piece of Shit, which I thought was a much more fitting name for that creep.
But one’s a court deposition from a serial rapist and the other’s a private sex tape leaked without the man’s consent. Please don’t compare the two for any reason.
Saying that leaking Hogan’s sex tape is okay because he’s Hogan is straying awfully close to saying that, for example, doxxing $MRA is okay because he’s $MRA or assaulting $Asshole is okay because he’s $Asshole – and by “Straying awfully close” I mean “I literally don’t see a difference” – and you know we’re not about that shit here.
I really don’t mean to infight here, but… Come on. Consent is consent and rape culture is rape culture, even if he’s a celebrity, or if he plays a ridiculous public character, or if you just don’t like the guy, or whatever. To say otherwise is, frankly, blaming the victim.
@Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
That doesn’t change my point. The legal reasoning is the same. I know one is rape and the other is a sex tape. I in no way said those two things were equivalent, and I’m surprised any reading of what I wrote could lead anyone to believe that was my point. So please don’t insinuate that I was writing serial rape = a sex tape.
Not what I said. I said he created a public persona where he made his sex life a public issue. It isn’t because he’s a bad person. That isn’t the legal reasoning behind any of this. Even if you disagree with the fact that, legally, we have different standards for public and private figures, that’s simply what it is.
Of course, I’d be lying if I said I had no qualms about my own position. That being said I don’t want to turn this into some long, drawn out argument/discussion on constitutional law standards. It might be best to call it a night.
OK, let’s say that’s the case.
Then if this indeed is part of his public image, he still gets to have control of that.
so, even if he wasn’t suing on privacy issues, he could just as easily sue on libel issues.
end of.
@Kat: Yeah, pretty much.
@Rosa de Lava: It’s okay, I was just cracking a joke at my own expense a bit.
But really, these GGers couldn’t tell me anything I haven’t already told myself.
As for how I’m doing, I spent hours (from noon to about 5PM) scrubbing walls in the kitchen to get them prepped for painting. I’m tired and things are sore.
But I also made some pulled pork, and I’m relaxing now and I’m gonna go catch up on my YouTubes so that’s good.
@KafkaNoMore:
I think the answer to your question lies in here, somewhere:
Pretty sure the Gits are fapping over Erin Andrews as we speak, when they’re not raging at her being a “crybully”.
@katz:
Personally, I don’t think the leaking of the tape was okay. It wasn’t newsworthy, and had no reason to be built up as a story.
That doesn’t mean I’m okay with him winning a lawsuit like this, though. I get the impression that some very fine legal lines are being drawn right now, and I’m not sure I’m going to be comfortable with the finished product.
I’ll fully admit that maybe I’m overreacting, of course. I’ve been looking at the worst possible slippery slope outcomes for things very often in the past month or so because of a medical issue, and maybe I’m just thinking things are going to be worse than they really will.
Double posting because I missed the edit window:
I’ll also admit that I don’t really know of a better way to resolve the situation now that it’s reached this point. Gawker clearly had no interest in capitulating to Hogan’s requests, so… I dunno. The whole thing just leaves me feeling uncomfortable all around. I’ve got no love for tabloid reporting specifically because of events like this, but at the same time I just don’t have a lot of faith in the US justice system as a whole.
Miss Andry,
I can’t speak for SFHC, but when I read their comment I thought they were emphasizing the distinction between a deposition and a personal film as much as the difference in content.
A privately-made sex tape is, well, private, unless you willingly publish it. Any personal film is, although obvious a sexual film is more sensitive. Sworn testimony (even at a deposition) is, I believe, public by default. One may be able to get it sealed or expunged or otherwise concealed, but that’s not a right that you have. Testimony is fair game for a judge to use as they find appropriate in a way a personal tape is not fair game for a tabloid.
@W.W.T.H.:
They really, really don’t…
It’s absurd how many people will link someone’s personal blog as “evidence” for their argument, even if said person isn’t knowledgeable of the subject or has a clear bias, while nonetheless dismissing viable sources with an often convoluted rationale.
It’s confirmation bias run amok – coupled with intellectual laziness and the effortlessness that comes with being dishonest online.
All that, and unapologetic hypocrisy…as mentioned in David’s post.
So, having found out that Gawker is just a blog, I’m even more convinced that releasing the tape was a shitty, shitty move.
I’m going to disagree with WWTH here. I think that blogs are journalism, inasmuch as there is such a thing any more.
IMHO any attempt to differentiate blogs from journalism will always result in an attempt to establish established old-media as somehow more noble than new-media. In a time when old-media is both dying commercially and becoming a boot-licking servant of established power, I don’t see this as a valid differentiation.
Given the noises that the White House has been making over the last few years about not believing that blogs are protected by the First Amendment, I think this is an important matter.
In the days of print, pamphleteers and columnists alike were recognised as forms of journalists, whether they tried to be a truthful record of events or simply saw themselves as propagandists. People who worked for Der Stürmer or Socialist Worker were journalists. The Wall Street Journal was journalism, but so was an outlaw neighbourhood zine. “Journalist” has never been a word that’s defined by either respectability or quality, only by a desire to make a living by putting current-affairs nonfiction content in front of eyeballs. In the post-print age the same mindset must apply.
Aww man, I check Gawker almost as much as I check 4chan.
Dude, c’mon. Part of the point of all this is he’s not a porn star, and he had no idea he was being taped.
I agree with Katz and SFHC on this one. I don’t really understand how leaking a private sex tape is OK just because the person boasted about their sex life? Like it seems victim Blamey to me and nothing to do with free speech.
I am vehemently opposed to sharing sexual images of any person without their consent, regardless of their profession, sexual reputation, fame, or decency as human beings. The only reasonable exception, in my opinion, is if the images are evidence of a crime – in which case, some judgment should be used.
In England we now have this:
It was aimed at preventing “revenge porn” but would probably apply here. You’ll see there’s a journalistic and public interest defence. It’s a common saying in courts here though that “public interest does not mean of interest to the public”. There has to be a legitimate reason (exposing sexual misconduct and the like). You also lose the protection if you’ve previously allowed the images to be used for gain.
It’s a relatively new thing so there’s not a lot of cases yet, other than straight forward revenge porn examples, but there’s no need for the motive to be revenge. You only need show an intention to cause distress; and in English law you are deemed to intend anything that is the natural result of your voluntary actions. You don’t actually need to have wanted the distress to happen.
@EJ:
True, blogs can be viable venues for journalism – that’s a very cogent point – but (please correct me if I misinterpret or state anything erroneously) I assumed what W.W.T.H. is referring to is how often blogs that act less like a news source than as a personal platform to deliver one’s opinion are treated as if they are also a viable news source by a troubling amount of people.
Perhaps Gawker wasn’t the best example to use, but I think of one example many here would recognize: Christina Hoff Sommers.
Many people online I’ve come across who reference or cite her don’t know know that she’s basically a spokeswoman for the American Enterprise Institute, which makes her positions on a lot of issues suspect, and she “backs up” her claims with op-eds than any actual studies. These are things that wouldn’t nor shouldn’t be difficult to look up and consider – but, due to confirmation bias and other factors, they just give her the benefit of the doubt.
Some are so convinced, in fact, that linking them those studies will only be treated dismissively no matter how much it’s backed up by evidence. Well, that or made out to be some kind of convoluted conspiracy…
Hello.
“He loves them like a fool… Oh Daddies, Daddies Cools !”
Hmm, sorry.
If i read correctly, Hogan had sex with a woman who happened to be the Significant Other of Bubba. So, Hogan had made Bubba a cuck ? Oh, wait, he is not a person of color or a refugee, so that must not be cucking (cuckholding ? I am lost with all those terms), right ?
I agree on the fact that the video, or even the information of cheating may not have been revealed in public (about the information part, at least if it has no consequence on anything else more important) by anyone save the involved persons (as long as all the involved persons agree, obviously. No revenge porn, thanks). It is called “private life” for a reason.
Have a nice day.
occasional reader:
I think that you can be a Cuck while being white? When they first used the term it was to refer to insufficiently racist conservatives, but know it seems to mean anyone they dislike.
I understand the possible concern about journalists getting sued for something they reported, but I’m WAY more concerned about the invasion of privacy. I’m deeply uncomfortable with the idea that there’s anything you can do that makes it okay for the paparazzi to invade your sex life.
When my book comes out and you can find my name in Publisher’s Weekly or wherever, you could conceivably define me as a public figure. (If I wrote a mega-bestseller someday and became the next J.K. Rowling, then I definitely would be.) And say, in the interests of helping my young readers, I made a comment in an interview or discussion like “There’s no right or wrong age to lose your virginity. I didn’t lose my virginity until I was 23.” Okay, now I’m a public figure who has made her sex life a matter of public record. Can people make sex tapes of me now?
No, seriously, I want to know so I don’t accidentally cross the line that makes me no longer have a right to privacy.
Not a fan of Hulk Hogan or Gamergate either, but yeah, there’s really no public interest being served by releasing a celebrity sex tape, especially since the “compelling public interest” is bragging about the size of one’s genitals.
If this were an illegal act and the film could be considered evidence (I.e. the Cosby deposition or the Rob Ford Crack smoking video), that’s different. I could see a case for something along the lines of Eliot Spitzer, who hired prostitutes while being the DA cracking down on prostitution. Even then, I don’t think the entire thing should be released unedited.