Gawker vs. Hulk Hogan sex tape case and the 1st amendment I'm a little confused about this case. Doesn't being recorded in your own home, or someone elses for that matter, require consent? Isn't there a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're not in public like that? If you're going through an airport there is no longer a reasonable expectation of privacy and you may be recorded. Many claim this is a landmark case in that it infringes on the 1st amendment and freedom of the press. I'm not sure I see it. If I had consensual relations with someone, don't I have the right to not have that material distributed even if I were famous and it was "newsworthy"?
Doesn't being recorded in your own home, or someone elses for that matter, require consent? That's not relevant here. Media outlets are generally not liable for reporting information that was or may have been obtained illegally, provided they are not the ones that did the illegal act, or directly incentivized its commission (e.g. if Gawker had paid someone to get them such a video). The person who filmed this act may or may not have committed a crime, but this was not relevant to the case at hand. In fact, Bollea (aka "Hulk Hogan") did sue those responsible for making the video; he settled with Bubba, but not with Clem. Bollea later added Gawker to the ongoing suit against Clem when publication of the tape was ruled to not be a copyright infringement. Isn't there a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're not in public like that? Also largely not relevant here, as Bollea's claims against Gawker were not about the production and existence of the tape, but of its publication. Bollea did allege invasion of privacy in his suit, but as concerns Gawker this was about publishing the video. Also keep in mind that Bollea had gone out of his way to convert his private life into a public spectacle by virtue of his reality tv program. Your reasonable expectation of privacy goes down when you have already set the bar so low that most every aspect of your private life is on public display. Some of Bollea's legal motions in his failed attempts to convict Gawker of copyright infringement were denied on the basis that publication of the video tape may actually constitute fair use. Celebrities in general have lower expectations of privacy than ordinary citizens. It's the well-known price you pay for fabulous amounts of wealth and fame: lots of people are paying attention to you and are interested in what happens to you, and you can't expect a lot of privacy when everyone's staring at you and hanging on your every word and action. Not that they have zero privacy rights, it's just harder for them to establish the "reasonable expectation". don't I have the right to not have that material distributed even if I were famous and it was "newsworthy"? Your question here is the embodiment of the controversy: where does freedom of the press end and personal privacy begin? Freedom of the press is constitutionally enshrined, and tends to be zealously protected in America as a prerequisite for true democracy and freedom. Personal privacy is not, and emerges more as the consequence of laws and the judiciary's application of certain Common Law sensibilities. There are some constitutional protections against governmental infringements (unreasonable search and seizure, that sort of thing), but the protections you have against non-governmental infringements only exist within laws. So the general expectation you can have is that if something is newsworthy, then it's fair game for the press to report on it. The issue falls to what qualifies as "newsworthy", and who gets to make that judgment? Part of Bollea's legal argument was that what Gawker published was not newsworthy, going to the extent of having the editor concede in court that a depiction of Bollea's genitalia was not newsworthy. And this "not newsworthy" angle seems to be the heart of what their case was getting at: what was reported was not done because it was "news", but because it would get Gawker attention and profits at Bollea's expense (including capitalizing on his famous Hulk Hogan persona). It's also the heart of why some people consider this a controversial and potentially problematic case. Those who have voiced 1st amendment concerns have done so primarily out of concern that this trial would allow courts and juries to decide what was "newsworthy" and what was not. Meaning that news outlets might now have to sweat bullets every time they published something because maybe a jury would assert it wasn't newsworthy, leading those outlets to be less likely to report certain aspects of news. Presumably these people feel that the only ones who should be deciding what is newsworthy is the press, and the public vis-à-vis their consumptions and demands thereof.
Chris Cuomo is wrong: the media are not different. For details, see this column by First Amendment specialist Eugene Volokh. My original answer was also wrong. Well, not wrong, but irrelevant. My answer was irrelevant because the hacked emails Cuomo was talking about do not involve national security. By focusing on the national security angle, I answered a question nobody asked. To make matters worse, in his comment on IKnowNothing's answer, A.fm. politely pointed out my mistake fourth months before I made it.
The right to free speech is a right that is guaranteed against the federal and state governments only. It is not a right that is secured against private individuals and corporations. It is also neither absolute nor unconditional, as there are a number of exceptions/limits. Alex Jones could not walk into your home and start "exercising free speech" and leave you with no recourse whatsoever to remove him from your home. If you don't consent to him being there, you may legally tell him to leave and have him removed by force if he fails to comply. Facebook etc. are the "homes" of the relevant corporations. They simply told Alex Jones to get out and go somewhere else. He retains his right to free speech; he simply never had a right to speak wherever he wanted. An always relevant XKCD.
The defense has an opportunity to question the witness the prosecution had called to provide foundation for the evidence, and in this case the defense's perspective is that the prosecution was trying to introduce evidence that they had improperly digitally manipulated. Part of their questioning was trying to figure out how the witness had manipulated the image prior to offering it as evidence. It's the prosecution's burden to prove that the evidence they are offering is accurate, the defense's purpose in asking the witness questions he could not answer is to try to prove to the judge that the prosecution has not laid proper foundation for the evidence because it has been manipulated from its original form in a way the prosecution cannot explain or justify as remaining fair and accurate to the events captured by the original footage. This case in particular had a lot of video evidence, and most of these issues were handled in motions in limine before the trial started. However, the drone evidence in question was dropped at the prosecutor's office after the trial started, so the prosecution did not really have time to hire and voir dire an expert witness on Amped 5 (keeping in mind that the defense similarly had little time to review and account for the new evidence in the middle of trial). Since the defense in this case were cross-examining the witness, they have some leeway to present an argument with their questioning like they chose to do with the red/blue pixel drawings. As I recall the judge allowed the evidence as-is, so it does not appear that the defense's arguments were persuasive to the judge.
Assuming the USA, since that's where they appear to be located. Spreading misinformation is not illegal- it is protected by the first amendment. There are exceptions but I can't see how any would apply here. You haven't mentioned any that you think apply. If some of the videos on the site guaranteed results or made medical claims, maybe that could be considered false advertising. However, I see no evidence of this. Users are advertised that paying for access to a bunch of hocum videos will get them access to a bunch of snake oil and this appears to be the case.
He does not need to be mirandized unless he is being arrested and the officers want to use things he will say as evidence. The officers in your situation seemed content to let the matter be handled through the school. If they had wanted to arrest him, they could easily have done so as soon as he pulled out the joint and handed it to the director. The "write a confession or you will leave in handcuffs" pretty much invalidates it in a court of law. Even if it weren't excluded, his testimony as to why he wrote it looks pretty bad in front of a jury. That said, I doubt that's where this case is headed. My understanding is this: The school director and two police officers caught your son smoking marijuana on school property. The punishment they sought is that he admit culpability and that he continue school online, and (presumably) on probation. In the grand scheme of how these cases could go, this isn't that bad. There are some procedural irregularities you could press, but there's enough evidence without the irregularities that work against your son. Having said that, sign nothing without consulting a lawyer. But it could be worse.
Some people seem to believe that just because something happens 'in the internet' it is somehow outside normal jurisdictions. Wrong. In may be harder to investigate and prosecute crimes in the internet, but the laws apply all the same. There are some problems when it is unclear 'where in the world' something did happen -- in the jurisdiction of the perpetrator, the victim, or the service provider? But problems of jurisdiction apply e.g. to international fraud cases in the non-web-world as well. In many jurisdictions, the informed and voluntary consent makes some things legal which would otherwise be illegal. For instance, if two boxers get into the ring, it is understood that each of them did consent to be hit by the other. But usually two fighters could not legally agree to a fight to the death, because even if there are laws on assisted suicide, they do not apply to a fight. Insults, libel, and slander are not on the same level as homicide. There are jurisdictions where they are not prosecuted without the request of the victim. But an insult might also violate other laws, e.g. disturbing the peace. So don't bet on such an app unless you know for sure which jurisdictions are involved.
Unless the Youtube Video shows them committing a crime, then no, they couldn't be arrested and tried for a crime. Them saying it, not under oath, is just hearsay that has no evidentiary value unless there is already other evidence they have committed a crime. In that case, its an admission. But there must be other, either circumstantial, or actual physical evidence of a crime. Past intoxication is not a crime, either. Possession of drugs, if caught with them is. But saying you got high is not. People have walked into police stations and confessed to murders. But with no evidence, no body, no name of a missing person, they can't even be held after the holding period for investigatory purposes expires. If the video shows them committing assault, or breaking and entering (there actually are idiots who post this stuff), the video is actual evidence of a crime and it is often used against them. The statements can be used to begin an investigation, but people don't usually confess to anything worth pursuing even an investigation. The fact that someone says they used to do something criminal is not enough. For all you ( meaning anyone ) knows, the statute of limitations has expired because they "pirated games" 10 years ago. Your comment is right on.