Jeff Bezos said he was black mailed by National Enquirer publisher with dick picks.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

No that was not an madlibs if you just read this is real.

Jeff Bezos AKA Chairman, CEO, and President of Amazon AKA one of if not the most richest man in the world said he was blackmailed from one of National Enquirer lawyers threatening to publish his dick.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/jeff-bezos-accuses-national-enquirer-publisher-of-blackmail-extortion.html

In a blog headlined "No thank you, Mr. Pecker," Jeff Bezos claims David Pecker's National Enquirer threatened to post sexual pictures that the billionaire Amazon CEO had texted to his mistress, Lauren Sanchez, including a "below the belt selfie."

In the blog post published Thursday, Bezos CEO accused AMI, the tabloid's publisher, of blackmail and extortion. He claimed that AMI asked him to publicly deny any political motivation in its coverage of his divorce.

AMI insisted on Friday that it did nothing illegal but would investigate further.

"American Media believes fervently that it acted lawfully in the reporting of the story of Mr. Bezos," it said in a statement. "Further, at the time of the recent allegations made by Mr. Bezos, it was in good faith negotiations to resolve all matters with him. Nonetheless, in light of the nature of the allegations published by Mr. Bezos, the Board has convened and determined that it should promptly and thoroughly investigate the claims. Upon completion of that investigation, the Board will take whatever appropriate action is necessary."

Bezos' request is likely in response to comments made by his security chief, Gavin de Becker, who previously told the Daily Beast that "strong leads point to political motives" in AMI's coverage.

Washington Post reporter discusses her investigation on Bezos affair expose Washington Post reporter discusses her investigation on Bezos affair expose
1:49 PM ET Wed, 6 Feb 2019 | 03:59
"In the AMI letters I'm making public, you will see the precise details of their extortionate proposal: They will publish the personal photos unless Gavin de Becker and I make the specific false public statement to the press that we 'have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AMI's coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces,'" Bezos wrote in the post.

Bezos and his wife, MacKenzie, announced their divorce on Jan. 9. Later that day, the Enquirer broke news about Bezos' affair with Sanchez, with private photos of the two dating. Bezos never publicly addressed the Enquirer's story until Thursday.

The Enquirer is published by Pecker, who has been friends with Trump for years. Trump has often attacked Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post, which the president believes treats him unfairly.

In August, media reports said federal prosecutors gave Pecker immunity as part of an investigation into a hush-money scheme involving Trump's former personal lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, to keep a porn star and a former Playboy model quiet about their alleged affairs with Trump. The model, Karen McDougal, sold AMI the rights to her story about her alleged tryst, but in a practice known as "catch and kill," the publisher never ran her account. The porn star, Stormy Daniels, filed a lawsuit against Trump on March 6 to void a nondisclosure agreement she signed in October 2016 - weeks before Trump was elected president - for which she received $150,000.

Cohen has pleaded guilty to campaign-finance charges related to the payments to the women. In December prosecutors gave AMI itself immunity in the hush-money probe. As part of the agreement, the company agreed it "shall commit no crimes whatsoever." If it turns out that Bezos' blackmail allegations are confirmed, AMI could lose its immunity. Federal prosecutors in New York declined CNBC's request for comment on Bezos' accusations against AMI.

At the White House, spokesman Hogan Gidley told reporters Friday he's "not sure" if Trump is aware of the dispute between AMI and Bezos. "We're not going to get into a conversation between Jeff Bezos and a tabloid magazine," Gidley added.

In his blog post, Bezos accused AMI of "weaponizing journalistic privileges."

"These communications cement AMI's long-earned reputation for weaponizing journalistic privileges, hiding behind important protections, and ignoring the tenets and purpose of true journalism. Of course I don't want personal photos published, but I also won't participate in their well-known practice of blackmail, political favors, political attacks, and corruption. I prefer to stand up, roll this log over, and see what crawls out," Bezos wrote.

AMI did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment. Amazon's representative wasn't immediately available for comment.

Amazon shares were down 2 percent in early trading Friday.

Here is the copy of the email Bezos received from AMI, according to his blog post. CNBC and NBC News have not independently reviewed the emails.

From: Howard, Dylan [[email protected]] (Chief Content Officer, AMI)
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 3:33 PM
To: Martin Singer (litigation counsel for Mr. de Becker)
Subject:. Jeff Bezos & Ms. Lauren Sanchez Photos

CONFIDENTIAL & NOT FOR DISTRIBIUTION

Marty:

I am leaving the office for the night. I will be available on my cell - 917 XXX-XXXX.

However, in the interests of expediating this situation, and with The Washington Post poised to publish unsubstantiated rumors of The National Enquirer's initial report, I wanted to describe to you the photos obtained during our newsgathering.

In addition to the "below the belt selfie - otherwise colloquially known as a 'd*ck pick'" - The Enquirer obtained a further nine images. These include:

? Mr. Bezos face selfie at what appears to be a business meeting.

? Ms. Sanchez response - a photograph of her smoking a cigar in what appears to be a simulated oral sex scene.

? A shirtless Mr. Bezos holding his phone in his left hand - while wearing his wedding ring. He's wearing either tight black cargo pants or shorts - and his semi-erect manhood is penetrating the zipper of said garment.

? A full-length body selfie of Mr. Bezos wearing just a pair of tight black boxer-briefs or trunks, with his phone in his left hand - while wearing his wedding ring.

? A selfie of Mr. Bezos fully clothed.

? A full-length scantily-clad body shot with short trunks.

? A naked selfie in a bathroom - while wearing his wedding ring. Mr. Bezos is wearing nothing but a white towel - and the top of his pubic region can be seen.

? Ms. Sanchez wearing a plunging red neckline dress revealing her cleavage and a glimpse of her nether region.

? Ms. Sanchez wearing a two-piece red bikini with gold detail dress revealing her cleavage.

It would give no editor pleasure to send this email. I hope common sense can prevail - and quickly.

Dylan.

So what do you guys think about this.

I don't like Bezos. But I do give him props for taking on blackmailers like this, releasing photo info. Doesn't sell him in a good light but sometimes you just need to pikl the bandaid off

Even without the politically motivated blackmail aspect, how is this not revenge porn? How can anyone publish photos of someone exposing themselves without their permission legally in the first place? Unless they were exposing themselves in a public space in the first place, it makes no sense for this to be considered legal.

When in doubt, share Marina Hyde's take and pretend it's your own;

Is there a Russian piss-tape of Donald Trump? Did a government agency intercept Amazon boss Jeff Bezos's dick pics? How did Trump's cheerleaders at the National Enquirer get them? Is this part of Trump's willy-waving at Bezos as owner of the Washington Post? Does the Enquirer's apparent blackmail threat to Bezos breach its plea deal with Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation, which gave its owners, American Media Inc, immunity in exchange for evidence about Michael Cohen's role in its policy of buying and killing Trump sex exposes? Is Riyadh somehow involved, given AMI's business ties with senior Saudi figures, and given that Bezos owns the Washington Post, whose columnist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered by the regime last October?

Guys, I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I am enjoying this reminder of why literally every American president has had a penis and why more than 95% of Fortune 500 CEOs do, too. Face it: the plotlines are just better. Public life is one big smutty ancient Greek vase.

And so to Bezos versus National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, who is real, and not the result of one of those "to get your porn name" games. As you may have read, the magazine has experienced problems ...delivering the Amazon boss's package to its readers. Last month it published details of his affair; this week, Pecker's winged monkeys threatened to publish his sexy snaps. Instead of capitulating, Bezos published the full correspondence on Thursday, under the mimsily hilarious headline "No thank you, Mr Pecker". Though this sounds like a porn sequel to Goodbye, Mr Chips, it concludes with a ringing, Jimmy Stewart-style call to arms.

"I won't participate in their well-known practice of blackmail, political favors, political attacks, and corruption," quavers Jeff, giving it the full Mr Smith Goes to Noshington. "I prefer to stand up, roll this log over, and see what crawls out. Sincerely, Jeff Bezos."

Well now. I see Ming the Merciless Retailer has been widely praised for his "dignity". And sincerely, I don't want to be a prick here, because in this one particular fight, Jeff is arguably the less unpleasant of the parties involved, who are - in no particular order - Donald Trump, the swamp-rat publisher of the National Enquirer and the actual Saudis. But we can't really have a Bezos-related conversation about "dignity" without mentioning that low-waged people who work for him sleep in tents and piss in bottles out of fear of being fired for taking a bathroom break.

On the other hand, those untangling the Trump web will take what they can. Occupying the moral high ground, then, is the richest man in the world, who is essentially saying that the way HE handles the scrapes his penis gets him into is so much more noble than the way the leader of the free world handles the scrapes HIS penis gets him into. He's right. Hey - in the kingdom of the dignity-free, the guy who doesn't pay people not to mention the Mario Kart mushroom is king.

Moving on to Bezos's suggestion that an intelligence agency ordered the interception of his texts, the two possibilities fingered for it so far are the Mossad or MI6, but not, as some would hope, Vladimir Putin's GRU. Still, going by what typical high-profile hacking victims tell us, it's not really their calling card. This week, a Labour MP declared herself a victim of hacking, after it was revealed her Twitter account had liked a dick pic. (That's the dread of this new cold war we're living in - the thought that while you are sleeping, the Russkies could sneak into your Twitter account, like a single pornographic image but do nothing else, then leave as undetectably as they came. DAMN YOU, KARLA. We're not so very different, you and I ...)

Given its attendant liabilities, then, perhaps it is no surprise to find the penis itself at the centre of some of the most significant political currents of our time. Indeed, perhaps it was ever thus, particularly as far as the office of US president is concerned. During the 1800 election campaign, Thomas Jefferson bemoaned the lack of big dick energy in John Adams, branding him a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman".

When the Basic Instinct and Showgirls screenwriter Joe Eszterhas came to write his book about Bill Clinton, he made the 42nd president's penis the protagonist. According to Gennifer Flowers, Clinton called his Willard, and Willard narrates vast chunks of the thing. Even the eminent Robert Caro's Lyndon Johnson biography makes space for Johnson's penis, which Johnson apparently called Jumbo. (I know. How could he not call it his Johnson? That's easily a worse missed opportunity than his failure to exit Vietnam after the assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963.) According to Caro, Johnson was given to waving Jumbo around in front of subordinates, with the rhetorical inquiry: "Have you ever seen anything as big as this?"

Maybe it was into this rich tradition that Donald Trump sought to knit himself during his White House run. "I guarantee you there's no problem," he informed "Little Marco" Rubio of his penis size during a primary debate. "I guarantee it." Two years later, the Enquirer's "catch and kill" operation had not successfully silenced the porn star Stormy Daniels, who accepted Jimmy Kimmel's invitation to pick the best Trump penis lookalike out of a variety of replica fungi.

So, yes, for all Mueller's old-time, dignified, methodical pursuit of his quarry, there is a generalised sense that a lot of this could easily come down to penises. Who had pictures of whose, where they got them from, who ordered them to be got, and who was paid, by whom, not to mention the penis. You'll miss a lot of this in whichever century they end up giving the ladies a turn, so get your dick kicks while you can.

Phallus begets phallus

At least now when ravenous mobs finally do decide to literally eat the rich, they'll have a good idea of what to expect once they get south of the boarder.

American Media (National Enquirer's parent company) bit off way more than it could chew this time and might face some serious legal consequences if Bezos is pissed off enough.

My hope is that it gets sued into oblivion like Gawker. The company is essentially a protection racket and propaganda outlet disguised as a journalistic endeavor.

I'm pretty sure any picture of Jeff Bezos is a dick pic.

Really, what has Jeff Bezos has done to deserve his apparent infamous reputation?

Just imagine how fuckin' dumb you'd have to be to go after the richest guy on the planet. These people are fucked.

Adam Jensen:
Just imagine how fuckin' dumb you'd have to be to go after the richest guy on the planet. These people are fucked.

Especially considering AMI has a 'Don't prosecute me and I won't commit a crime' deal with the special counsel over all the OTHER crimes they've committed.
So if they are blackmailing Bezos, they're super duper fucked

Adam Jensen:
Just imagine how fuckin' dumb you'd have to be to go after the richest guy on the planet. These people are fucked.

I'm suddenly reminded of that blackmail scene in The Dark Knight.

Of course, this is infinitely more pathetic.

Samtemdo8:
Really, what has Jeff Bezos has done to deserve his apparent infamous reputation?

Essentially becoming the richest man on the planet through the near-slave like labor of his Amazon shipping centers where workers piss in bottles because they can't leave their stations.

undeadsuitor:

Samtemdo8:
Really, what has Jeff Bezos has done to deserve his apparent infamous reputation?

Essentially becoming the richest man on the planet through the near-slave like labor of his Amazon shipping centers where workers piss in bottles because they can't leave their stations.

Is that why I am able to get products from Amazon if I order it from Amazon's own providers rather then third party ones?

It took me 2 months for this used book I bought from a third party provider long after the expected delivery date, but Amazon manages to deliver it on time.

Samtemdo8:
Really, what has Jeff Bezos has done to deserve his apparent infamous reputation?

I would say that he has up the minimum wage in his centres in America to $15.

After he became the richest man in the world.

He makes Musk and Jobs look like caring owners. But then some companies make workers wear adult diapers becuase letting someone go to the toilet for two minutes is a waste of company time.

Someone with a legal mind explain this to me.

Wouldn't this be considered Revenge Porn?

... scrolling up, I see that Lil Devils X asked the same question. But I'm still asking it too.

Because even if Jeff Bezos and the Enquirer are in those backwards states that don't have any legality on the subject, It has a website and it's nationally circulated. So... issues.

trunkage:

Samtemdo8:
Really, what has Jeff Bezos has done to deserve his apparent infamous reputation?

I would say that he has up the minimum wage in his centres in America to $15.

After he became the richest man in the world.

He makes Musk and Jobs look like caring owners. But then some companies make workers wear adult diapers becuase letting someone go to the toilet for two minutes is a waste of company time.

They still have to go to the rest room to change the diapers...

Samtemdo8:

undeadsuitor:

Samtemdo8:
Really, what has Jeff Bezos has done to deserve his apparent infamous reputation?

Essentially becoming the richest man on the planet through the near-slave like labor of his Amazon shipping centers where workers piss in bottles because they can't leave their stations.

Is that why I am able to get products from Amazon if I order it from Amazon's own providers rather then third party ones?

It took me 2 months for this used book I bought from a third party provider long after the expected delivery date, but Amazon manages to deliver it on time.

Pretty much. Amazon's delivery times are unsustainable and carried on the broken backs of workers

Sadly people have gotten used to the near instant delivery times so it's unlikely to change any time soon

Adam Jensen:
Just imagine how fuckin' dumb you'd have to be to go after the richest guy on the planet. These people are fucked.

They thought they could get away with this because they probably have blackmailed people so many times before and always ended up on top. They're a cat who's use to chasing mice they thought they could take on a lion.

PsychedelicDiamond:
I'm pretty sure any picture of Jeff Bezos is a dick pic.

SO I am not the only one who thought that his head looked like a....

tf2godz:

Adam Jensen:
Just imagine how fuckin' dumb you'd have to be to go after the richest guy on the planet. These people are fucked.

They thought they could get away with this because they probably have blackmailed people so many times before and always ended up on top. They're a cat who's use to chasing mice they thought they could take on a lion.

They are used to people wanting to cover shat up and they have no clue what to do when the guy doesn't give a F*. I hope he closes their racket down. I hate tabloids and am still not sure how they have been able to legally operate as long as they have pulling underhanded BS like they do.

undeadsuitor:

Samtemdo8:

undeadsuitor:

Essentially becoming the richest man on the planet through the near-slave like labor of his Amazon shipping centers where workers piss in bottles because they can't leave their stations.

Is that why I am able to get products from Amazon if I order it from Amazon's own providers rather then third party ones?

It took me 2 months for this used book I bought from a third party provider long after the expected delivery date, but Amazon manages to deliver it on time.

Pretty much. Amazon's delivery times are unsustainable and carried on the broken backs of workers

Sadly people have gotten used to the near instant delivery times so it's unlikely to change any time soon

They have like anyone deliver packages for them during the holidays to make their 2 day shipping. The guy who delivered packages for me one year was in shorts, T shirt on a golf cart pulling a wagon with an open beer in his cup holder.

Samtemdo8:

trunkage:

Samtemdo8:
Really, what has Jeff Bezos has done to deserve his apparent infamous reputation?

I would say that he has up the minimum wage in his centres in America to $15.

After he became the richest man in the world.

He makes Musk and Jobs look like caring owners. But then some companies make workers wear adult diapers becuase letting someone go to the toilet for two minutes is a waste of company time.

They still have to go to the rest room to change the diapers...

After you shift is finished. Not before

Chimpzy:

Adam Jensen:
Just imagine how fuckin' dumb you'd have to be to go after the richest guy on the planet. These people are fucked.

I'm suddenly reminded of that blackmail scene in The Dark Knight.

Of course, this is infinitely more pathetic.

Dammit, thats what I was going to reference.

Also, I feel dick pics are a pretty weak thing to try and blackmail someone over. If he'd been sending those dick pics to an extramarital affair or someone underage or something else that could screw his life over then you've got some leverage but just dick pics by themselves? I hear sending those is all the rage these days anyway, this would hardly embarrass him for a single news cycle

Tireseas:

My hope is that it gets sued into oblivion like Gawker. The company is essentially a protection racket and propaganda outlet disguised as a journalistic endeavor.

This. I don't get why the tabloid industry is legally allowed to exist the way it does. (what with the constant invasion of personal privacy, etc.)

As an aside, I cannot even imagine the kind of person that actually reads that kind of crap let alone pays for it at a supermarket.

jademunky:

Tireseas:

My hope is that it gets sued into oblivion like Gawker. The company is essentially a protection racket and propaganda outlet disguised as a journalistic endeavor.

This. I don't get why the tabloid industry is legally allowed to exist the way it does. (what with the constant invasion of personal privacy, etc.)

As an aside, I cannot even imagine the kind of person that actually reads that kind of crap let alone pays for it at a supermarket.

'Freedom of Speech' and 'Corporations are people'.

It will be so great to see a billionaire destroy a media company. Again. While liberals cheer.

At least it's the National Enquirer, I guess.

Seanchaidh:
It will be so great to see a billionaire destroy a media company. Again. While liberals cheer.

At least it's the National Enquirer, I guess.

Whether or not what AMI/National Enquirer did was criminal extortion/blakmail (there are several legal experts who argue it may well fall short), this particular media organizaton DESERVES to be destroyed because:

1) Regardless of the level of criminality of their actions, this is the absolute height of unethical behavior. The pictures, including the dick pics, are either newsworthy, or they are not (I'd argue they are newsworthy, but that's beside the point). As a news organization, you don't obtain sensitive information and then weaponize it, in this case to get Bezos to back off his investigation. That's not what journalists do.
2) AMI and its lawyers (!), one of whom used to work for Amazon, had absolutely NO issue putting their extortion plans in goddamn emails (!!!) and sending them to the richest man on the planet. So what does that tell you? I think it's pretty clear that A) this is standard practice at AMI, and B) they've done this before plenty of times and been overwhelmingly successful.

So yes, AMI deserves to be destroyed, top to bottom.

jademunky:

Tireseas:

My hope is that it gets sued into oblivion like Gawker. The company is essentially a protection racket and propaganda outlet disguised as a journalistic endeavor.

This. I don't get why the tabloid industry is legally allowed to exist the way it does. (what with the constant invasion of personal privacy, etc.)

In general, the U.S. grants pretty broad freedoms to the press, especially in cases of public figures (Bezos most certainly is such a figure). And yes, tabloids peddle gossip and salacious rumors regarding the private lives of public, and you could argue that such info has no real public value. But the Supreme Court has consistently abstained from determining what is and what is not "newsworthy" to the public and allowed the press to make those determinations itself. It's part of the "Congress shall make no law..." component of the First Amendment.

In this specific case, the invasion of privacy argument doesn't have much merit. Why? Bcause Bezos was the one who published the sensitive info, not AMI. That said, AMI could be sued or could face criminal charges for extortion/blackmail (again, as I noted in my previous post, several legal experts have said this case could fall short of criminality). Regardless of what Bezos chooses to do, AMI should absolutely be burnt to the ground.

Palindromemordnilap:

Chimpzy:

Adam Jensen:
Just imagine how fuckin' dumb you'd have to be to go after the richest guy on the planet. These people are fucked.

I'm suddenly reminded of that blackmail scene in The Dark Knight.

Of course, this is infinitely more pathetic.

Dammit, thats what I was going to reference.

Also, I feel dick pics are a pretty weak thing to try and blackmail someone over. If he'd been sending those dick pics to an extramarital affair or someone underage or something else that could screw his life over then you've got some leverage but just dick pics by themselves? I hear sending those is all the rage these days anyway, this would hardly embarrass him for a single news cycle

Even them being from rooting out of school wouldn't matter 'cos Bezos' marriage is in the shitter anyway. The underage receipient is literally the only way this would have worked. It's like no one remembered what happened when someone tried this same shit with David Letterman.

Exley97:

jademunky:

Tireseas:

My hope is that it gets sued into oblivion like Gawker. The company is essentially a protection racket and propaganda outlet disguised as a journalistic endeavor.

This. I don't get why the tabloid industry is legally allowed to exist the way it does. (what with the constant invasion of personal privacy, etc.)

In general, the U.S. grants pretty broad freedoms to the press, especially in cases of public figures (Bezos most certainly is such a figure). And yes, tabloids peddle gossip and salacious rumors regarding the private lives of public, and you could argue that such info has no real public value. But the Supreme Court has consistently abstained from determining what is and what is not "newsworthy" to the public and allowed the press to make those determinations itself. It's part of the "Congress shall make no law..." component of the First Amendment.

In this specific case, the invasion of privacy argument doesn't have much merit. Why? Bcause Bezos was the one who published the sensitive info, not AMI. That said, AMI could be sued or could face criminal charges for extortion/blackmail (again, as I noted in my previous post, several legal experts have said this case could fall short of criminality). Regardless of what Bezos chooses to do, AMI should absolutely be burnt to the ground.

I'm reminded of Peter Thiel backing anyone who wanted to take down Gawker. And that turned out quite well for him, didn't it? And considering that Bezos is several degrees of magnitude richer than Thiel, well: I'm worried for AMI.

If Bezos has any sense of pride or respect for society, he should turn this event into an excuse to bring down AMI.

He has the money to afford it, what else is he going to do with that much wealth?

Abomination:
He has the money to afford it, what else is he going to do with that much wealth?

Actually pay the people who generate that wealth decently?

Seanchaidh:

Abomination:
He has the money to afford it, what else is he going to do with that much wealth?

Actually pay the people who generate that wealth decently?

Let's not be absurd.

This is a Capitalist society, not a Effortist society.

Seanchaidh:
It will be so great to see a billionaire destroy a media company. Again. While liberals cheer.

At least it's the National Enquirer, I guess.

Look, what if it were me?

What if some publication were printing out "here's Jademunky getting off the toilet, here's what we found when we went through his garbage. No we will not disclose our sources as doing so will undoubtedly open them up to criminal indictment since there was no legal way this photo could be obtained."

Do you not see how scary this is to an average person? It's no wonder conservatives are constantly beating the shit out of journalists, they think this is the default (they are, after all, the only ones buying the inquirer).

jademunky:

Seanchaidh:
It will be so great to see a billionaire destroy a media company. Again. While liberals cheer.

At least it's the National Enquirer, I guess.

Look, what if it were me?

What if some publication were printing out "here's Jademunky getting off the toilet, here's what we found when we went through his garbage. No we will not disclose our sources as doing so will undoubtedly open them up to criminal indictment since there was no legal way this photo could be obtained."

Do you not see how scary this is to an average person? It's no wonder conservatives are constantly beating the shit out of journalists, they think this is the default (they are, after all, the only ones buying the inquirer).

And sometimes what is done to your side is way worse than the enemy. I could imagine a whole slew of conservatives who get blackmailed if they aren't toeing the party line. Maybe comservatives have experience with it from places like the inquirer, not just hear about it.

I could imagine it's like listening to a gossip. If they are gossiping about someone to you, they gossiping about you to someone else

jademunky:

Look, what if it were me?

What if some publication were printing out "here's Jademunky getting off the toilet, here's what we found when we went through his garbage. No we will not disclose our sources as doing so will undoubtedly open them up to criminal indictment since there was no legal way this photo could be obtained."

Do you not see how scary this is to an average person? It's no wonder conservatives are constantly beating the shit out of journalists, they think this is the default (they are, after all, the only ones buying the inquirer).

Unless you're a public persona. The thing about Gawker is Hogan is not only a public persona, but had routinely drawn speculation to his sexual escapades. So one argues 'public interest'. It's a bit of a fucking lark to draw speculation about your sexual activities constantly as a tv personality, and then blame a media outlet publishing information about it.

But as in you, personally, as a private entity is different. There is an inherent transgression there. As a private person who is not in the public eye who has not created public interest in one's sex life... then a media outlet can't claim 'public entity and speculation'.

It's kind of a faux pas. And mind you this shit happens constantly to poor people and minority groups and no one seems to rally to their cause. That trans kid at that Colorado high school. The Pacific 'Justice' Institute knowingly published libel about her, outed her, and detailed where she went to school. In the pursuit of making her life a living Hell.

Got away with it scott-free. Similar thing happened in the UK concerning a teacher. Nothing happened.

In Australia you can press charges, not just damages. As it's naked vilification. You can't claim public interest, and neither do you draw a speculative gaze simply by existing, and you'd do nothing to warrant or deserve public opinion. Public entities are a bit different. Public entities, at least in reference to what they do, deserve public inquiry. If a politician uses their expense allowance for knowingly personal items or services, regardless of what they are it's public interest. Because who else will keep politicians honest about what they do and say?

Plus Malcolm 'Trousers' Fraser was and will always be public interest.

So it's bit hard to have sympathies with public personas richer than God getting a bit uncomfortable purely by their own hand. I mean seriously, dick pics are going to leak if you're public interest. When exactly does the law protect people from their own stupidity?

I have more sympathies for private entities who neither invited, deserve, or benefit from public speculation.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here