Gawker Documentary Fails to Make Case for Publishing Sex Tape
Film favors martyrdom over careful analysis.

Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press. Available now on Netflix.
I'm afraid that merely to disclose the subject of the Netflix documentary Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press is about—the dire threat to the First Amendment posed by a jury's decision that a website did not have a right to show a stolen video of professional wrestler Hulk Hogan's penis in action—is to give away the entire plot: Yes, this is the latest and greatest chapter in the news media's eternal proclamation of martyrdom at the hands of prigs and fascists. And yes, it rises to such an awesome level of whining self-aggrandization that it threatens to spoil the good name of hogwash.
So, spoiler alert.
The case that's the subject of Nobody Speak is possibly the most fascinating and least significant in the three-century history of media litigation. It's full of depraved sex, villainous intrigue, and lurid betrayals. But its ultimate contribution to legal canon was not exactly epic. As longtime media lawyer Charles Glasser (an interview of whom would have been a welcome addition to Nobody Speak) wrote after the verdict, the case's lesson was simple: "Don't publish secretly-made sex tapes."
The story begins in 2012, when celebrity wrestler Hogan (nom de real life: Terry Bollea) got an unusual gesture of friendship from his best pal, radio shock-jock Bubba the Love Sponge: Hey, wanna sleep with my wife? Hogan knew this was a frequent recreational activity of Bubba (nom de non-perv world: Todd Alan Clem) and the busty Mrs. Sponge and had previously declined to participate But this time, down on his luck—and wallet—after a series of business reverses and an expensive divorce, he agreed.
What Hogan didn't know was that the Sponges routinely and secretly taped these marital guest appearances. (After the case blew up, Bubba claimed Hogan knew all about the taping, but he wouldn't repeat it under oath during the trial.) That might not have mattered except that a copy of the recording, apparently stolen by one of Bubba's employees, found its way into the hands of the scabby gossip website Gawker.
Founded in 2002, Gawker regularly trafficked in sex tapes and such scoops as the grooming of Republican senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell's pubic hair. Founder Nick Denton, the British journalist who built Gawker into the centerpiece of a $200 million online media empire, routinely defended his celebrity-bullying scandal sheet as a champion of truth and democracy in a world of lickspittle mainstream media. "Everybody knows what usually appears, certainly, in the establishment media bears little resemblance to what's really going on," he says in Nobody Speak. Speaking truth to Bristol Palin and Justin Beiber!
Gawker posted a chunk of the tape; Hogan's attorney asked it be taken down, and when Gawker refused, filed a breach of privacy lawsuit. What followed was a series of potboiler plot twists: Another sex tape, with racist remarks by Hogan that would get him booted out of pro wrestling; intimations that Gawker, wittingly or not, was acting as a stalking horse for blackmailers; an FBI sting against a sex-tape broker; and a series of legal stratagems by Hogan's attorneys that the Gawker legal team considered inexplicably stupid but which turned out to be brilliant.
The real stupidity occurred on the Gawker side of the courtroom, none so lethally damaging as the swaggering arrogance of the site's former editor, A.J. Daulerio, who wrote the story accompanying the Hogan sex tape. During his testimony, Daulerio insisted that images of boinking celebrities are always newsworthy.
Always? wondered Hogan's attorney. Well, maybe not if the celebrity was a child, Daulerio conceded dismissively. Under what age? asked the attorney. "Four," sneered Daulerio, a remark that nearly everybody agrees sent Gawker's case into a death spiral. In an interview in Nobody Speak, a wounded Daulerio insists that "Clearly, I'm kidding." So, there's a second lesson to be had in the Gawker case: Don't practice your stand-up act during sworn courtroom testimony.
The case ended with the jury finding for Hogan and awarding him an astronomical $140.1 million in total damages. And, in one final plot twist, it was revealed that Hogan's lawsuit was funded by Silicon Valley zillionaire Peter Thiel, who developed a distaste for Gawker after it outed him in 2007 with a story headlined "PETER THIEL IS TOTALLY GAY, PEOPLE."
Nobody Speak tells the complex and admittedly entertaining story of the lawsuit well enough, albeit mostly from the perspective of Gawker. It's in the analysis of what the case meant where it gets shrill and foolish.
Most fundamentally, it's in the documentary's assumption that the jury verdict punished Gawker for truthfully reporting the peccadillos of the rich and powerful. (If a broke pro wrestler can be considered either one.) If Gawker had merely written that Hogan slept with his best friend's wife, Hogan could not possibly have sued him; truth is an absolute defense against libel.
But the wrestler didn't sue for libel. He went after Gawker not for what it said, but for invasion of privacy in what it showed: an intimate act, performed in private, taped without his knowledge or consent and then stolen by third parties. If that's not a breach of privacy, then literally nothing is.
That there isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) any such thing as a legally enforceable right to privacy may be an arguable position—but then it should be argued, openly and plainly, not cloaked in a silly claim that in being punished for publishing an illicitly obtained picture of Hogan's junk, Gawker is being thwarted in the pursuit of "real journalism, journalism that exposes things that powerful people don't want known," as one of the Gawkerites grandiosely claims in Nobody Speak.
There's even less merit in Nobody Speak's contention, advanced loudly, one-sidedly and at length, that there was anything novel or sinister in Peter Thiel's funding of Hogan's lawsuit. The concept of third-party funding of lawsuits goes back to ancient Greece and has been practiced in the United States for hundreds of years. Does anybody really believe that Oliver Brown, a welder in a railroad repair shop, really paid for all the legal costs of Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark school-desegregation that bore his name?
The shocked, shocked progressives who decry third-party funding in Nobody Speak should have been asked if they're outraged that venture-capital companies and big law firms banded together (in return for a share of the winnings) to finance the class-action lawsuit in which Ecuadorean Indians were awarded $9.5 billion from Chevron as damages for oil spills in Amazon.
Banning third-party financial support of lawsuits would not only put the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund out of business but would prevent threadbare litigants from setting GoFundMe accounts to raise legal fees. Even a lawyer taking a case on a contingency base—that is, loaning out his legal skills in hopes that he'll be paid back later—is a form of third-party funding.
And outlawing third-party help for legal costs might have backfired badly on Gawker, too, which had its own financial angel during the lawsuit: It funded its legal war chest by selling a chunk of itself to a Russian oligarch named Viktor Vekselberg for an undisclosed but no doubt hefty sum. How much money was involved? What control over Gawker's fearless editorial voice did Vekselberg get? Nothing about that in Nobody Speak, which sees American billionaires as an existential threat to freedom of the press but takes its own name quite literally when it comes to Russian billionaires.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
YEAH BROTHER
This would have never happened to Macho Man Randy Savage.
Who the fuck really wants to see the Hulkster's boner on film anyway?
About Hooker Hulk Hogan?
Why do the rich, powerful, and famous have FAR more "free expression" rights than dirt-poor people?
Dirt-poor hookers turn a $50 or $100 "trick" in the streets? Off to jail with them! Courtesy of Government Almighty!
Hooker Hulk Hogan turns a $115 million trick? Government Almighty is his Chief Hit-man Enforcer to collect his $115 payment-due for turning the trick! I think we all (the public and the taxpayers) are the "trick" that are getting fucked in these kinds of "free expressions" of those who hit the lawsuit lottery jackpot for being low-life SCUM!
It's been a very long time since I've wanted to watch Hulk Hogan wrestle. I never wanted to watch him screw.
So, there's a second lesson to be had in the Gawker case: Don't practice your stand-up act during sworn courtroom testimony.
Nothing was as sweet as watching these degenerates get taken down by the very snark that was their stock-in-trade.
It's still unbelievable that this is the hill these people chose to die on. All they had to do was take down the video, long after the article was published and they'd gotten all their clicks.
It's also notable that The Fappening happened during this whole episode, and there were no shortage of articles in the Gawkerverse about how anyone who even looked at any of the pics was a criminal of the worst sort
If looking at Scarelt Johansen's hot naked bod is wrong, then I don't wanna be right.
"It's also notable that The Fappening happened during this whole episode, and there were no shortage of articles in the Gawkerverse about how anyone who even looked at any of the pics was a criminal of the worst sort"
Exactly! I remember this vividly. They purposely chose not to publish any nude photos of actresses that were released out of respect for the actresses' privacy even though they published Hulk Hogan's sextape. Hulk Hogan's penis ok, but Jennifer Lawrence's vagina "icky"! That's how you knew that Gawker was a PC liberal website when they love penis but hate and fear vagina. Just look at PC liberal Hollyweird. Same thing there too.
Outstanding.
Gawker is being thwarted in the pursuit of "real journalism, journalism that exposes things that powerful people don't want known," as one of the Gawkerites grandiosely claims in Nobody Speak.
LOL.
Like how much of an idiot Robby Soave is.
I remembering thinking it was bizarre that liberals were attacking Peter Thiel. Since when do liberals criticize a gay man? Isn't that heresy?
Then I learned that Peter Thiel was a Republican, and all became clear.
No infidel is ever hated as much as an apostate.
Indeed.
But this time, down on his luck?and wallet?after a series of business reverses and an expensive divorce, he agreed.
So Clem was paying him to sleep with the wife?
...and such scoops as the grooming of Republican senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell's public hair.
Damn auto-correct!
Well in this case it did become rather public.
The Theil-Vengeance angle is splendid.
$1 bill from the Kochs: Poisonous
$1 bill from George Soros: The Ring of Power, but only used for good.
Damn, that's going to leave a mark.
That same description, fwiw, might have applied to some of the things written here @ Reason about the Gawker-ruling.
There was never a particularly good argument made for why Thiel shouldn't/couldn't fund Hulk's suit. the funding of the suit had little to do with why it *won*. If the situation had instead been a matter of the plaintiff simply out-spending Gawker, and tying them up in courts for years, they (and i think sullum was the one who wrote most of them) might have had a better point.
But the fact was that all the money in the world really couldn't have helped Hulk *win* if he didn't have a very good case on the legal merits in the first place.
and the second line of argument made (i think by scott, but there were dozens of gawker-related posts)... was basically that juries are incapable of making any rational determination of what does or doesn't meet a "Public Interest" test.
I never found either particularly compelling.
I think the actual lesson of the case was, "don't give court-depositions like this"
Progressives are shit-stained, hypocritical, masters of double-standards.
News at 11.
And Netflix better knock it off with their SJW bull shit cause I will cancel like I did CNN.
I have enough bull shit to deal with in my life than have to listen to whiny, losers lie to people.
https://www.jobschat.in
SSC cpo admit cardso
Bank of Maharastra Part time sub staff admit card
TNPSC Assistant geologist admit card
ADCC Bank admit card
Odisha Judicial Service admit card
Mppkvvcl office Assistant admit card
TNPSC degree College Lecturers admit card
Nice Posts. Thanks
Freshers Jobs
Government Jobs
Walk In Drive
Off Campus Drive
Thanks for this wonderful post. The information in this article is very helpful to me. Thanks a lot for sharing. Keep blogging.
Questions to ask your boyfriend
Questions to ask your boyfriend
Great Article! I really appreciate this.You are so awesome! This issue has and still is so important and you have addressed it so Informative.
http://www.guestpostweb.com/
Guest Post Website
Digital Marketing Institute with hands-on experience in digital marketing courses and live project coaching/training.
Digital Marketing Institute Kolkata