WWE drops Hulk Hogan after racist 2007 rant surfaces

Started by Syt, July 25, 2015, 02:36:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3
User actions

dps

#30
July 27, 2015, 04:31:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 27, 2015, 02:56:04 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2015, 02:13:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 27, 2015, 01:41:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2015, 07:42:24 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2015, 06:49:46 AM
*shrug* don't be a public figure then.

Yep. After all if WWE thinks this is bad for their image then they've an imperative to cut ties.

Hulk Hogan is a bona fide public figure, admittedly, but isn't the tendency these days to make anybody a de facto public figure? I mean, we start to get to the point exemplified by gawker recently posting a story about some nobody executive of some company cheating on his wife. We quickly get to the point when there is no privacy expected or respected at all - and if we adopt the attitude like yours we will get there much faster.
Didn't they pull that story almost immediately because they realized the law wouldn't protect them if he sued, since even under the most charitable of definitions he was not a public figure?

Yeah but I am saying the threshold should be higher (i.e. the way it is in the UK, France or Poland) - if you public potentially defaming information about another person (even if the information is true), you need to show public interest. The threshold for a public figure is lower than for a private person, but even a public figure is not a free game, so to speak.

Our standard always has been (well, since 1734--before we were even a nation) that the truth of a libel is a valid defense.

The Minsky Moment

#31
July 27, 2015, 06:10:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 27, 2015, 02:53:41 AM
Publishing private information about people, unless the publishing party can prove public interest. This is how it is done in Europe, by the way.

Here we have freedom instead.
Different strokes for different folks.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Martinus

#32
July 28, 2015, 05:59:25 AM
Perhaps, given that the ways of communicating have changed drastically, it is time to change your ways? I sure thing that European level of protecting privacy is more appropriate to the Internet age.

garbon

#33
July 28, 2015, 12:51:31 PM
I don't think Europe has made a compelling case on why the US should be less free.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

The Minsky Moment

#34
July 28, 2015, 12:53:30 PM
Also I don't think significant changes in the US constitution are required simply because some people elect to "communicate" via sex tape.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

garbon

#35
July 28, 2015, 12:57:13 PM
:lol:
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Siege

#36
July 31, 2015, 02:17:58 PM
Garbon, love your new signature.


"All men are created equal, then some become infantry."

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

"Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!"

garbon

#37
July 31, 2015, 03:30:06 PM
Hasn't changed in a long while, buddy.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3
User actions