from:aodespair gawker

@meganeabbott But you owe Gawker fifteen minutes of video. The First Amendment says so.

@KevinHobster ...using the film. Gawker could have described its content and made every salient point. Instead, revenge porn...

@twunch_ The fight is going to happen anyway. But bad cases can make for worse precedent. Gawker saddled press with a shitbag.

@Gawker That said, the hair piece, for lack of a better term, was kickass. #summaryjudgment #IREaward

@tomscocca cite one case precedent, let's go just a little deeper about what courts have said because much precedent does not help Gawker:

@tomscocca ...repeatedly, but if Gawker is going to venture so far beyond the established boundaries of privacy law, then Gawker damn sure..

@tomscocca ...in any way diminishes the issues of law to which Gawker's remarkable filmic journey into a private bedroom are liable.

@tomscocca ...I've ever seen by a news organization. This affront was one that left Gawker vulnerable to definitions of privacy that...

@tomscocca What Gawker did was one of the most flagrant, extraordinary affronts to an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy that...

@briantedjones It has. Or is hasn't. That seems to be what the Gawker case is about. As an ex-reporter, I am fascinated.

@tomscocca If Sullivan-like standard was applied here, to privacy affronts, Gawker's behavior would be found problematic nonetheless.

@tomscocca As with mistaken reportage resulting in libel, is Gawker able to say we didn't know tape private? We thought we had consent?

@tomscocca ...actually apply to privacy law, but let's say it did -- is Gawker able to claim an absence of malice for the privacy affront?

@tomscocca But you just cited a ruling that is about Gawker's right to publish free of injunction. Zero to do with issues of liability....

@tomscocca ...which Gawker argument s about newsworthiness have thus far fallen short. To be clear, I agree with the appeals court that...

@pob5341 Awful analogy. Gawker can make no such compelling claim of public's need to know. & Individual expectations of privacy and gov't..

@tomscocca @mariabustillos ...damn sure better come into court with a compelling argument for the affront. Gawker. Did. Not. They lost.

@tomscocca @mariabustillos So don't be bringing Trump hypotheticals and claiming a universal law was invoked when it wasn't. If Gawker...

@tomscocca @mariabustillos decidedly still in play as good media lawyers will still good editors, and where, at Gawker, neither species...

@mariabustillos @tomscocca Gawker argued public interest in ex-wrestler fucking in private. Didn't play there. Doesn't play with me.