Bollea v. Gawker
SITUATION DEFINITION
Invasion of privacy, as defined by the legal dictionary, is the “intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded.” There are many different types of invasion of privacy, such as portraying someone in a false light, appropriating someone’s name or likeness, right to privacy in the workplace, etc.
In 2006, Terry Bollea, more commonly known as Hulk Hogan, was taped while having sex with Heather Clem without his knowledge or consent. Clem was the wife of TV personality Bubba Clem, who apparently gave Hogan his blessing to sleep with her. A portion of the tape containing sexually explicit material was uploaded to Gawker.com, a well known celebrity news and gossip site, where it quickly went viral. The video was uploaded to the site without Hogan’s permission.
ANALYSIS
Though there are many, the main ethical issue in this case was the publication of private facts without permission. Hogan brought the suit against Gawker, claiming “invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, publication of private matter, and violation of the right to publicity.” (Columbia Global Freedom of Expression)
Gawker’s legal argument for uploading the video excerpt was that it was newsworthy (and therefore protected by the First Amendment). According to an article on BusinessInsider.com, Gawker claimed that “since Hogan is a celebrity and has discussed his sex life at length in the media, it had become a matter of public concern.”
Public concern, according to Quimbee, is “speech involving a public issue that is important to the general public, and invokes a substantial amount of independent and continuing public attention.”
In what universe would Hulk Hogan having sex with a random woman fall under this category?
Just because someone talks about something publicly (such as sex in this scenario) does not mean that there is any right or justification for it to be blasted over the internet. Any ethical person in their right mind should know that it is not morally just to post such a thing on a heavily trafficked website.
It is also important to note that in a time where social media is at large, publications have to be hyper-aware that what they post on the internet has potential to go viral at a moment’s notice.
“The Twitter Effect is defined as the rapid spread of information through the micro blogging service Twitter. The tweets can spread out like the branches of a tree and reach a very large number of Twitter users.” (Alejandro 2009)
Though Hogan’s video was not posted on Twitter, the concept is extremely similar to that of “the Twitter Effect.” As mentioned before, the video went viral immediately after its’ publication to the site. This negatively affected not only the perception of Hogan as a person, but the perception of him in his career as a wrestler. Hogan, who took years to create a name for himself in the wrestling industry, would now be forever tied to the name Gawker.
CONCLUSION
Justice was served in the end; Hogan won and the suit was finally settled when Gawker settled to pay him $31 million in damages. After paying this (and over $100 million on the case itself) Gawker was forced to file for bankruptcy in June of 2016.
In conclusion, no matter how many benefits you may receive for publishing something (ad revenue, attention from the media, etc.,) you should never publish private information without the consent of the person who it would affect (unless it falls under the category of actual public concern.) It doesn’t matter if you are a popular publication like TIME Magazine, or even a random gossip website like Gawker– you should always put yourself in the position of the person who is going to be affected by your decision.
If the owner sat down and asked himself, “How would I feel if some website posted a sex tape of me that I had no idea was even being recorded in the first place?” I’m sure we all know what his answer would be.
The shutdown of Gawker should be a lesson to any person or publication that think they have some kind of right to expose someone’s private information without any consent. All actions have consequences, especially in this industry.
REFERENCES
Jennifer Alejandro (2009) (p.19) Reuters Institute Fellowship Paper University of Oxford
Columbia Global Freedom of Expression (2016) Retrieved from https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hogan-v-gawker/