|
|
The point they are making about the rich affecting journalism could be relevant with another case. I just don't feel that the example they use of Hulk Hogan's case is a supportive case. They took private video from him and published it, but somehow this movie tries to argue this is freedom of press? It totally isn't. Just because the guy is a wrestler means that people have the right to his private videos? Terrible example, I just don't feel sorry for the Gawker people. They should have had some ethics on this one.
I would like for them to imagine they had a video tape of themselves in the bathroom or something like that where they didn't know they were being filmed. Would the argument that this is freedom of press at all make sense? I support the fact Gawker got shut down for doing such a dumb move.
score 1/10
ericdavised-76922 3 July 2017
Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw3745053/ |
|
4-12-2019 00:09:40
