Summary: Bollea V. Gawker

978 Words4 Pages

Bollea v. Gawker was one of the most famous and public lawsuits regarding free press and personal infringement and privacy. This trail will go down in history in determining the lives for independent publications in the future to come. When a news company posts a story about a intimate moment, this could be a limit to what is defined as ‘freedom of press’. However, wealthy individuals in the 1% are confining self-sufficient corporations by constricting press as a whole. Gawker Media’s distribution of Terry Bollea’s tape was highly unethical and commercially driven, but, obliterating a small company like Gawker entirely is extremely unlawful. Regarding Gawker’s actions, from the basis of the public sphere, the publication of leaking the tape …show more content…

Fake news is a phenomenon that consists of rumours throughout social media that radically disables fact checking, and it makes it easy for people to make up stories quickly. (Mincheva, 2017). Consequently, media ownership can affect the discussion of fake news in this post-truth society as we are deeply targeted to emotion and not with the factual points. This is evident in the film when Mr. Thiel and Mr. Adelson dismantle Gawker Media and the Las Vegas Review Journal and it is apparent that Silicon Valley is more powerful than the media. If a specific corporation in Silicon Valley decides to buyout a news outlet, there is no moral obligation to inform the reader of the truth, but rather share information that is that is to their own …show more content…

If we remove the individual from showcasing true works to society, we are limiting a basic human right. Although I do not agree with Gawker’s actions of publishing the sex tape of Hulk Hogan, what Peter Thiel does their company is quite despicable. Not only does Gawker go bankrupt as a result of the trail, Mr. Theil has opened the door to destruct a publication through litigation. Not only does he do this financially but he also ruins their reputation as well. He claims in the film that it was “... the great philanthropic thing I’ve done” (Knappenberger,