I'm a bit confused why people are taking the side of Hulk Hogan. Maybe the dislike of gossip news is blinding people to the larger free speech implications.
Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person?
Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent?
Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were initially obtained illegally but were given to the publication? (see wikileaks…etc)
If you answered 'yes' to all 3, what principals (or ideally…laws) let you side with Hulk Hogan?
Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person?
Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent?
Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were initially obtained illegally but were given to the publication? (see wikileaks…etc)
If you answered 'yes' to all 3, what principals (or ideally…laws) let you side with Hulk Hogan?