Where Privacy Ends And Content Begins: Gawker's Vile Outing Of A Private Person
"Where Privacy Ends And Content Begins" is the title of a section on the right to privacy in my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck."
It's relevant right now because of Gawker's despicable outing of the brother of a former Obama official for allegedly trying to pay a gay escort for sex. The man's brother is married and has children. And he's a magazine exec, not a politician.
At reason.com, Robby Soave gets it right on the horrible violation of the man's privacy. The story apparently came out after the now-outed man (allegedly) backed out of sex with the escort after it became clear that the escort wanted to extort him for help with his housing situation:
The escort then went to Gawker's Jordan Sargent, who gleefully carried out the blackmail threat by publishing the story and (presumably) outing [the man].[The man] is not a government official; he is not running for office; he does not have a record of hypocrisy on gay issues. The usual excuses one could propose to justify such treatment don't really apply here.
Some Gawker writers are defending the story; others are not. Natasha Vargas-Cooper, a writer for Gawker affiliate Jezebel, wrote: "Stories don't need an upside. Not everyone has to feel good about the truth. If it's true, you publish. ... I'm EXTREMELY suspicious of those who do not want press to have an antagonistic relationship to people in power."
That's a fair point, but it doesn't come close to justifying the decision to turn a family's struggles into front page news. There's just no compelling public interest here whatsoever.
Exactly right. Here's that excerpt on this from my book that explains when it is fair to yank somebody's privacy. (The reference to Brandeis and Warren starts earlier in the chapter, quoting their 1890 Harvard Law Review article on privacy):
Where privacy ends and content begins
Sometimes it is fair game to yank somebody's privacy: to publish their name, image, or whereabouts or other information about them that they'd rather not have made public. Harvard's Digital Media Law Project advises that the law protects you when you publish information that is newsworthy, meaning that there's "a reasonable relationship between the use of the (person's) identity and a matter of legitimate public interest."
Brandeis and Warren pointed out that politicians and other public or quasi-public figures have, to a great extent, "renounced the right to live their lives screened from public observation." They explained that the details about a would-be congressman's habits, activities, and foibles may say something about his fitness for office, whereas publishing something about, say, a speech impediment suffered by some "modest and retiring individual" would be an "unwarranted . . . infringement of his rights."
Still, private individuals sometimes do things that justify our stripping them of their privacy. Say some lady parks her BMW convertible in a handicapped space (sans disabled plate or placard) and jogs over to the dry cleaner. She's gambling that no ticket-giver will come by before she's back. She's also taking advantage of how, anywhere but in a small town, we're largely anonymous to the people around us, removing the natural constraint on rude behavior--concern for reputation--that's in place when people you know can see the hoggy things you're up to. We restore the reputational cost by webslapping her: taking her picture and blogging, tweeting, and Facebooking it in hopes of shaming her (and compelling other inconsiderados who see the posts) into parking like less of a douche in the future.
A webslapping is also in order for rude people who have voluntarily given up their privacy by bellowing their cell phone conversation so loudly that everyone seated around them in a restaurant is forced to listen to it, which makes it a public conversation. You don't, however, have the right to blog, tweet, Facebook, or otherwise broadcast a quiet conversation you're able to overhear between people seated behind you, assuming they aren't talking about a plot to blow up the State Department.
You likewise have no right to blog the sex acts or allegedly proposed sex acts of a private person -- one whose work has no bearing on the rest of us -- simply because you find out about them. It's rude. Also, it's evil. (And that's not a word I toss around lightly.)
Related: Michael Wolf on Gawker head Nick Denton's way of running his business.
You likewise have no right to blog the sex acts or allegedly proposed sex acts of a private person -- one whose work has no bearing on the rest of us -- simply because you find out about them. It's rude. Also, it's evil. (And that's not a word I toss around lightly.)
I agree with you that it can be both rude and evil, but if it doesn't cross the line into blackmail, you do have a right to do it.
Privacy under the law, isn't what people think it is. And it is quite a sketchy constitutional concept much like *dignity*.
Reporters and bloggers cannot wire tap your phone, break into your home, or hack your computer legally but if you do something in public, like donate to the KKK or solicit a prostitute, or visit an abortion clinic, you have opened the door to someone reporting on it, private citizen or not.
Isab at July 17, 2015 10:41 PM
"he does not have a record of hypocrisy on gay issues."
What about other issues. Say hypocrisy on family since visiting a escort when having a wife. Also as a magazine exec, would he have hesitated to release this same type of story on anyone else.
I'm wondering if there is a rivalry between Gawker and his magazine.
As to the newsworthiness of the story, there is some definitely there. A person attempted blackmail and indirect blackmail/favoritism of a high level government official (the brother). The escort should have the full extent of the law brought against him.
Joe J at July 18, 2015 12:28 AM
"You likewise have no right to blog the sex acts or allegedly proposed sex acts of a private person -- one whose work has no bearing on the rest of us -- simply because you find out about them."
How about commenting on those cases which are self-reported?
You have been a bit more open about your personal life than I.
There are a great many things we do not have a "right" to, but this is largely due to great confusion about the definition of "right".
Just as the truth is defense against slander, any truthful account of an otherwise private citizen's behavior in public is fair game.
Radwaste at July 18, 2015 1:45 AM
First, Amy, I notice you follow Gawker on Twitter at this moment. Let's not bitch about Gawker's horribleness than extend our patronage to them, 'kay? It's so fucking hypocritical.
It's like complaining about how horrible tabloids are, then making sure you pick them up at the grocery store every week.
And I don't really see how this particular story is anything different from the usual garbage people are normally interested in. Since when do we only want our scandals restricted to politicians? We pry into actors'/musicians' lives every day. Why should a CEO be off limits? Is there a list somewhere of which high-profile types whose scandals we're supposed to interested in and which ones are hands-off?
Don't misunderstand. I'm not interested in any of that shit. If I read an article about Edward Norton, for instance, I'm more interested in the roles he's playing, his acting style, etc. I couldn't tell you a thing about his personal life, and I don't want to know.
But when Cathy Young posted some excerpts about this story, I did get a chuckle out of Max Read's (who is, I guess, Gawker's editor) vowing that Gawker will always report on cheating CEOs. So, I tweeted him, "Why? Are you that jealous of people who can get laid?"
Patrick at July 18, 2015 4:34 AM
Patrick, the fact that one follows someone on Twitter shouldn't be seen as approval for everything they do. I keep my eyes open and read many people I disagree with and also include in my column the research of scientists I personally think are jerks or who have snubbed me in some way. The question is whether it's good science, not whether I enjoy them as human beings.
"I agree with you that it can be both rude and evil, but if it doesn't cross the line into blackmail, you do have a right to do it."
Whether you can be prosecuted for it is one question. Whether it is morally right is another. You might buy my book Isab -- it's only $10.55 on Amazon -- and you'd see the bit on how a person has a right to control the release of personal information about themselves (assuming it isn't a matter of public interest).
Here's another excerpt from that section:
Amy Alkon at July 18, 2015 5:05 AM
We pry into actors'/musicians' lives every day. Why should a CEO be off limits?
A actor or musician -- and I'm assuming you mean the famous ones -- is a public figure. I am a public figure. In becoming one, I have lost certain privacy rights that you, Patrick, retain, as a private citizen.
Amy Alkon at July 18, 2015 5:07 AM
...which isn't to say I think it's nice that there's such prying into actors/musicians' lives, to the point they are tortured by paparazzi and have every pimple exposed in the tabloids.
Amy Alkon at July 18, 2015 5:08 AM
The Goddess writes: A actor or musician -- and I'm assuming you mean the famous ones -- is a public figure. I am a public figure. In becoming one, I have lost certain privacy rights that you, Patrick, retain, as a private citizen.
And David Geithner, as the chief financial officer of Condé Nast, which reaches more than 164 million consumers is not a public figure? Is that it?
So, you, as an author and syndicated columnist in more than 100 newspapers, are a public figure, but Geithner, CFO of Condé Nast and the brother of former secretary Timothy Geithner, is a private figure.
Like I said, I think we need a list as to whose sex lives are fair game and which ones are off-limits. Because I'll be damned if this makes any fucking sense to me. Sarah Palin is a public figure, but Bristol Palin (as her daughter) is a private figure? Why not? It's her mother's accomplishments, not Bristol's. So, how did Bristol get on Dancing With The Stars? That show much use the term "star" very loosely.
Personally, I think my life is so much easier by simply not giving a good God-damn about anyone's sex life. Except mine, of course.
Some very interesting things in the article. "There's just no compelling public interest here whatsoever."
Is there some compelling public interest in knowing that Mel Gibson is a drunken raving antisemite/racist/sexist/homophobe? I don't remember anyone objecting to his drunken tirades becoming public knowledge, and turning an A-list movie star into box office poison.
What about this? When describing a private person, you said, "...one whose work has no bearing on the rest of us."
Based on that definition, I would say that Mel Gibson is a private person. His work has no bearing on me whatsoever. Even if I liked his movies, so what? He has nothing to do with my livelihood. I don't make money off him. He has no effect on me whatsoever. So, how does Mel Gibson not be a private person, but Geithner is? Surely, a high-level position in a mass media company that reaches 164 million is has at least as much bearing on the rest of us as Mel Gibson and his shitty movies.
This makes absolutely no sense to me, and I can't believe it would make sense to anyone else.
And I'm not sure what you mean by the word "rights" but under the law, you retain the same rights I do.
Patrick at July 18, 2015 5:40 AM
I think both of youse guys are right in some sense but a sense of "fairness" is stronger in say Amy than Patrick. (Hearing a "You make your bed now sleep in it.")
All parties in this (Gawker, escort, customer) did things based on an assessment of risks to them.
Unfortunately for the customer (big risk) and,in the future, the escort (reduced future income now that all know he can not be trusted) came true.
Gawker has much less risk 'cause they did not post a picture of you know who so they are making money.
Fairness, wrongness, legal or not(?) in this case is very personal even for those of us reading it.
Bob in Texas at July 18, 2015 5:59 AM
And I'm not sure what you mean by the word "rights" but under the law, you retain the same rights I do.
Posted by: Patrick at July 18, 2015 5:40 AM
Exactly, fortunately in every case, your first amendment rights to report a true story, however unflattering the content of that story might be, trumps some ephemeral right to "privacy" that doesn't exist as either a legal or practical right,
It is also impossible to make a distinction between public and private figures anymore. The internet pretty much took care of that dubious distinction.
I shudder to think to think what any of our rights would be worth if we could criminalize saying nasty but true things about people. Public figures or not.
Isab at July 18, 2015 7:56 AM
Say hypocrisy on family since visiting a escort when having a wife.
And what business is that of yours?
Let those without sin cast the first stone. Will that be you, Joe J?
Meanwhile, I'll be over here, doodling in the sand. Get back to me when you've carried out the sharia law.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 18, 2015 8:02 AM
And David Geithner, as the chief financial officer of Condé Nast, which reaches more than 164 million consumers is not a public figure? Is that it?
So, before the Gawker hit piece came out, you knew who David Geithner is? impressive, most impressive.
I didn't know, and about 10 minutes after this hub-bub dies down, I'll go back to not knowing. Because it isn't that important to me. I might remember this headline, tho:
Personally, I avoid Gawker and their affiliated sites. They have nothing for me, and their stinky click bait is just that: stinky.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 18, 2015 8:08 AM
"Personally, I avoid Gawker and their affiliated sites. They have nothing for me, ..."
Jalopnik is not entirely worthless, if you are at all interested in cars.
dee nile at July 18, 2015 8:30 AM
Joe: What about other issues. Say hypocrisy on family since visiting a escort when having a wife.
While it's not likely -- and I wouldn't put any money on it -- it's possible that this guy and his wife have an open relationship. I think most people underestimate the number of couples who have this kind of relationship. So we really don't know that he was being a hypocrite on "family values."
Now, if this guy had made a speech or two, pontificating about "family values", and proclaiming how faithful he and his wife were to one another, that would be a different matter. Then, in my opinion, it would be fair game to out him as a hypocrite.
It was also fair game, I suppose, to out him if you're one of those people who despises Obama so much that you also hate anything or anyone even remotely connected to him. The Obama-haters on this forum don't appear to be in that particular camp.
JD at July 18, 2015 8:59 AM
In the Washington Post:
JD at July 18, 2015 9:09 AM
Maybe I've missed it, but it seems to me that no one is pointing the finger at the real culprit here, namely, the escort. Escorts are at the high-end of their profession. I would assume that discretion is part and parcel of the service.
The escort is the one who publicized this. As such, not only should this pretty much end his career, he has surely opened himself up for legal action, civil and possibly even criminal.
Gawker is just a slimy media house, much like the many other slimy media houses on the Internet. Journalistic ethics never really existed the way we like to think, but the Internet has finished off even the pretense thereof.
a_random_guy at July 18, 2015 9:22 AM
I R A Darth Aggie: So, before the Gawker hit piece came out, you knew who David Geithner is? impressive, most impressive.
Too subjective, I R A. Who I know and who I don't know is no standard by which to measure a public figure. I don't keep track of who's hot now. And if were the sort of person who followed the stock market, for instance, I'd probably know exactly who Geithner was. Or perhaps if I followed the Obama administration more closely, I'd know who Geithner was. "Gee, Tim Geithner's brother is the chief finance officer of Conde Nast."
So, you're suggesting, it's not about having power or influence. It's about who people have heard of?
How many people have to have heard of them for them to be considered a public figure. Amy described herself as a public figure. But what percentage of the population has actually heard of her. I'd say less than 1% of the people I know. Simply because they don't read advice columns (or don't read hers), and don't read books on manners. Amy's written two good books and collaborated on another but they're no bestsellers.
On the other hand, I would be hard-pressed to find someone who's never heard of Mel Gibson. So, where does Geithner fall on this Amy to Mel spectrum? Somewhere in the middle?
Patrick at July 18, 2015 9:34 AM
Basically, I think the manufactured outrage over Geithner's "outing" (if this really was an outing) is hypocritical bullshit.
People do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy outside their homes. If he's going to proposition an "escort," he runs the risk of being found out. If he's a high profile exec of a mass-media company that reaches 165 million people, then yeah, chances are good that worthless rags like Gawker are going to want to report it.
No, he does not get immunity because he's not a face on the movie screen or on album covers. You, me, or anyone are fair game once we make take our business outside our homes.
Spare me all the boo-hoo-hoos for poor Geithner and his family, all the while you lap up Charlie Sheen's latest escapades, or whomever.
What is not okay to do to your "private individual" (which no one on this thread has been successfully able to define) isn't suddenly okay if it's someone that most people have heard of.
If you're going to cry for Geithner, then cry for Hulk Hogan, James Franco, Quentin Tarantino, Michelle Malkin, Christina Hendricks and everyone else who has been a victim of Gawker's ongoing sleazefest. And for that matter, most male professional athletes, too, since Gawker seems bound and determined that you see every male professional athlete's dong, without any other accompanying details (like the athlete's face, for instance) to actually prove that it belongs to the person they claim it belongs to.
This attitude of Geithner is off-limits while high-visibility types are perfectly fine is just hypocritical horseshit. You are either okay with busting into people's private lives, or you are not. The only possible exception I could stomach is when there's a particularly odious level of hypocrisy involved. For instance, a sanctimonious pro-family values politician who cheats on his wife. (Looking at you, David Vitter, the diaper-fetishist whoremonger, who said that Clinton could no longer morally serve as President for cheating on his wife.)
Patrick at July 18, 2015 11:04 AM
I have to agree with Patrick on this. He is as public a figure as Amy.
I also never cared for the 'normally I would never tell a story like this, but in this case . . .'. It is scummy to do this to anyone no mater their personal or professed views. After so many years where this was a favored political attack it should be no shock that this tactic has entered general use. When people stir up the scum it splashes all over the place.
Ben at July 18, 2015 8:02 PM
I'm with Gawker, for publishing. Why? Because his wife and kids have the right to know who they share their house and life with. She has the right to know her husband is engaging in the riskiest health behavior there is. The man did it. There's no expectation of privacy from others with whom you interact. He solicited this man, therefor he knew this man might tell others. He obviously didn't care enough about his private life to keep it private-he was sharing it with strangers-so why should anyone else hold his privacy in higher regard than he himself did?
Don't want the world to know you meet strange dudes for sex? Don't meet strange dudes for sex. Simple enough.
momof4 at July 19, 2015 10:19 AM
I'll agree that his wife and children certainly ought to know if their patriarch is sleeping around with anyone, but should the rest of the world? Reporting something as news world-wide seems like severe overkill just for the sake of letting Geithner's wife and children know that Geithner is a philanderer.
It got the job done, yes, but it's a little like hunting rabbits with an Apache helicopter.
I just think that, in order to be consistent, we need to decide for ourselves either, everyone's personal life is off-limits or no one's is.
For myself, I think everyone's personal life is off-limits, except in those cases where there is hypocrisy to be exposed.
Patrick at July 19, 2015 1:22 PM
Geithner has no record of hypocrisy on gay issues, but how about prostitution? In his jobs at Time Inc. and Conde Nast, has he never signed off on a story or editorial that advocated the persecution of adults that pay or accept payment for what is perfectly legal when free? (Hint: 99% of "human trafficking" stories are BS, deliberately confounding slaves with women who _choose_ an icky but higher paying job.)
markm at July 21, 2015 5:06 AM
Leave a comment