Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[theinevitable]

That's not how it's supposed to work.

I just don't get why it's not. To use the example brought up in the case, what if they had published child porn? Could they conceivably make the argument that it was "news" and so it was just a case of mistaken judgment to publish it? Surely there is some boundary beyond which "I thought it was news" can't justify literally any editorial mistake.

And again, the "queen stealing a car" example is comparing things that are not the same. There's an entirely different expectation of privacy behind closed doors than in public.

[wombat]

I think bringing child porn into a discussion is kind of like bringing in Hitler, there is usually no useful place to go with the comparison.

But as for expectation of privacy: Government and business corruption takes place in private. That's why the news has to be able to share things that took place in private, if it serves the public interest.

[theinevitable]

I still don't buy it but maybe we had best end here:

life is too short for me to spend time contemplating anything about why celebrities and sex is news.

[wombat]

And be thankful that you're neither a lawyer/judge or a journalist and are not responsible for trying to make these decisions.

[theinevitable]

Every day.

[miles]

I think bringing child porn into a discussion is kind of like bringing in Hitler, there is usually no useful place to go with the comparison.

Here's a better comparison: Rihanna goes to some guy's house, has consensual sex with him, it's recorded without her knowledge and published online without her permission.

It's hard to feel too bad for Hulk Hogan but replace him with another entertainer more likeable and Gawker looks so much worse.