Hogan's sex tape and the interesting issue of free speech

News and discussion on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, marriage, divorce, animal rights, etc.



Hogan's sex tape and the interesting issue of free speech

Postby Bill Whatcott » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:46 pm

Image Image
Hulk Hogan (Picture left) is "traumatized" Gawker released a sex tape of him committing adultery with Heather Clem (picture right), apparently
at the behest of her husband Bubba the Love Sponge Clem (his real legal name) also picture right.


I think I would have awarded Hulk Hogan $5.00 for his alleged trauma (I can't see how he was traumatized, he has been known as a seriel adulterer and whore long before this tape came to light. In fact all three involved in this scandal are morally vacuous. It seems the Clems had and open marriage, so they both slept around with untold numbers of people who they were not married to. It seems Hogan's current wife was not happy finding out her hubby Hogan was screwing Mrs. Clem, however that seems to be more Hogan's self inflicted grief rather than an injustice against Hogan. I don't believe there should be privacy rights for adulterers or any other criminal for that matter. I agree with Bryan Fischer below. There should be no right to create and distribute pornography either. While I don't think Gawker should compensate Hogan more than $5.00 for the loss of his non-existant dignity, I do believe they should be fined $100,000,000 for polluting America by posting the porn tape on their website and making it available to the public.
Bill Whatcott

Hulk Hogan, the tape, and the 1st Amendment
Monday, March 21, 2016
Bryan Fischer

When the Founders wrote the First Amendment, they were writing about protecting political speech – not pornography. It means the same thing today as it meant then.

Hulk Hogan of wrestling fame just won a $115 million settlement against the tabloid rag Gawker for publishing a surreptitiously taped sexual encounter between Hogan and his best friend's wife. To make things even more tawdry, the best friend set up the encounter and then taped it without either his wife's or Hogan's knowledge.

The magazine yapped and yawed to no avail about the First Amendment and its guarantee of freedom of the press. Even some conservatives I have read came out in defense of Gawker on constitutional grounds.

Pornography has no more protection under the Founders' Constitution today than it did in 1791, judicial activism notwithstanding. Pornography can and should be made illegal tomorrow, and if it were, there would be no violence done to the Constitution whatsoever. And our cultural fabric would be strengthened in the process.

But they are certainly wrong and the jury was certainly right to punish Gawker for invasion of privacy, and should have punished the magazine for publishing pornography as well. The jury will be adding an award for punitive damages, and I'd suggest they tack on a big bunch for trashing public decency.

There is absolutely no First Amendment defense for pornography – none. The First Amendment protections for both speech and the press have to do with expressions of opinion, not the publication of depictions of people having sex in front of a camera.

The First Amendment was written at a time when our experience with the Crown and its efforts to ban speech and newspaper editorials that were critical of its behavior was still fresh. The Founders were determined that our fledgling nation would not repeat that wretched expression of tyranny.

Thus, in America, the federal government is prevented by the First Amendment from interfering in any way with the expression of political opinions in either speech or publication, whether by newspapers or bloggers or Tweeters. (Since every right in the Bill of Rights is an individual right, not a collective right, bloggers have exactly the same First Amendment rights The New York Times does.)

But the Founders were about protecting political speech, not porn. Pornography has no more protection under the Founders' Constitution today than it did in 1791, judicial activism notwithstanding. Pornography can and should be made illegal tomorrow, and if it were, there would be no violence done to the Constitution whatsoever. And our cultural fabric would be strengthened in the process.

Not even laws against profanity and blasphemy in the first 13 states were touched by the First Amendment. If the Founders did not intend to legalize profanity and blasphemy by the First Amendment, they most certainly did not intend to legalize the public depiction of adultery and fornication either.

Since the First Amendment has never been amended, it means the same thing today as it meant when the Founders crafted it. Porn has no First Amendment protection under the Founders' Constitution at all. Period.

One other thing. Hulk Hogan shares culpability for this mess by choosing to violate the 7th Commandment and its prohibition against adultery. No adultery, no tape. No adultery, no national embarrassment. No adultery, no national humiliation.

So a proper understanding and application of the First Amendment could have saved Gawker $115 million and counting. And a proper understanding of the Seventh Commandment could have saved Hulk Hogan from making a spectacle of himself.

The Bible and the Constitution - they work every time they're tried.
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6683
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Return to Moral Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest