Storm Collectibles- Hulk Hogan

[ali032373]

It was leaked b/c Gawker is trying to smear him. His status of being a celebrity has nothing to do with it. Much like anonymity has nothing to do with privacy.

Right. Because Gawker is not the business of exposing celebrities. They leak sex tapes of average ppl everyday.

And for smearing, theyre hogan's own words. He should take responsibilty for what be said. And If he was being smeared then why did he offer an apology? Show me the gun that gawker put to his head and made him say those things.

 

[Y4NK33 PL4N3T]

Right. Because Gawker is not the business of exposing celebrities. They leak sex tapes of average ppl everyday.

And for smearing, theyre hogan's own words. He should take responsibilty for what be said. And If he was being smeared then why did he offer an apology? Show me the gun that gawker put to his head and made him say those things.

Gawker is currently in the business of trying to save it's business from Hogan in a lawsuit. And Hogan did take responsibility, he made a public apology.

 

[ali032373]

So he's accpeted responsibility and offered a full apology, but he's being smeared. Got it.

 

[Y4NK33 PL4N3T]

Once you get that being famous or being a celebrity doesn't mean that person signed off on having their rights infringed upon or broken completely you'll be all set.

 

[ali032373]

The diminution of your privacy is the part of a cost benefit anaylsis of celebrity. Whether it be right, wrong, or outside the confines of the law,your privacy is at a significantly greater risk. In exchange for that increased risk the celeb receives fame and money. And thats just life. And i think you'll be all set when you acknowledge this fairly simple reality. this isnt AP Calculus for most of us.

 

[Y4NK33 PL4N3T]

In exchange for that increased risk the celeb receives fame and money.

Celebs receive fame and compensation based on their value in their respective field of work whether it be an actor/actress, pro athlete, etc.

The notion that celebrities are compensated for having their rights infringed upon and/or broken completely is asinine. And thats just life. And I think you'll be all set when you acknowledge this fairly simple reality. This isnt AP Calculus for most of us.

 

[ali032373]

You misunderstand. Or choose not to. your interpretTion of my post that celebs are paid to have the privacy violated is just silly. Having a diminution of privacy is a part of the analysis in continuing or choosing to be a celeb. Obviously youre paid for your talent. But i guess i should have put that in since the painfully obvious is not your stong suit.

 

[KingGrayskull]

So you basically think celebrities don't deserve the same rights as everyone else? Wow.

I would agree that part of celebrity is to lose a significant amount of privacy. If he wanted privacy he should have been a car salesman or lay asphalt and no one would care about his "private" racist moments.

The law pretty clear here:

Celebrities particiapate in public life. However this does not mean they live 24/7 in public. When a celebrity makes a public appearence it is not private and not part of the privacy. The right of privacy itself is still active. For example many celebrities decide to hide their children from public (eg Michael Jackson) or to not talk about their private life in general.
However the right of privacy can be weakend by the celebrity. Some easy not Hogan related examples:

Angelina Jolie has publically talked about her breast amputation to make people aware of breast cancer. Her families history regarding breast cancer and her amputation are clearly part of her privacy. With her public announcement she "lost" the right of privacy regarding this topic. This means the media is legitimated to discuss this topic over and over again. Also they may discuss if it was the right step to make this issue public. However although they know that AJ got breast amputation they are not allowed to fly with a helicopter over here house and check if she is lying topless by the pool and how she looks topless now. This part of her remains private (unless she decides to make topless pics available to the public).

Another example to weaken the right of privacy would be the Ossbournes. They have decided to let a camerateam film their (staged?) family life, which is again usually part of the privacy. With their public appearence people are now legitimated to discuss the TV show and even related stories (such as the happenings with Ozzys son and daughter outside of the show).

Another example would be Britney Spears who lived a very public life a few years back with all her horror stories. Just remember the skirt accident. Her right for privacy was definitly weakened around that time. However today she has decided to live a more silent more private life. Her right for privacy is stronger today. You are not allowed to put a camera under her skirt and check if she got some panties meanwhile.

Summed up a celebrity does have the same rights of privacy as every other human, but the more public they make their private life, the less they can insist on their right for privacy. Its really up to the celebritys behaviour / life style and can even increase/decrease over time (as it happened with Britney).

Hope this helps. Please dont be rude with me if something is unclear. I have just realized that I have a few vocabularies missing.

 

[Y4NK33 PL4N3T]

You misunderstand. Or choose not to. your interpretTion of my post that celebs are paid to have the privacy violated is just silly. Having a diminution of privacy is a part of the analysis in continuing or choosing to be a celeb. Obviously youre paid for your talent. But i guess i should have put that in since the painfully obvious is not your stong suit.

Understanding that anonymity =/= privacy, Hogan's tape was leaked and not released, and celebs aren't compensated and willing to have their rights violated just b/c they're famous, are 3 concepts that are painfully obvious but aren't your strong suit.

 

[ali032373]

The law pretty clear here:

Celebrities particiapate in public life. However this does not mean they live 24/7 in public. When a celebrity makes a public appearence it is not private and not part of the privacy. The right of privacy itself is still active. For example many celebrities decide to hide their children from public (eg Michael Jackson) or to not talk about their private life in general.
However the right of privacy can be weakend by the celebrity. Some easy not Hogan related examples:

Angelina Jolie has publically talked about her breast amputation to make people aware of breast cancer. Her families history regarding breast cancer and her amputation are clearly part of her privacy. With her public announcement she "lost" the right of privacy regarding this topic. This means the media is legitimated to discuss this topic over and over again. Also they may discuss if it was the right step to make this issue public. However although they know that AJ got breast amputation they are not allowed to fly with a helicopter over here house and check if she is lying topless by the pool and how she looks topless now. This part of her remains private (unless she decides to make topless pics available to the public).

Another example to weaken the right of privacy would be the Ossbournes. They have decided to let a camerateam film their (staged?) family life, which is again usually part of the privacy. With their public appearence people are now legitimated to discuss the TV show and even related stories (such as the happenings with Ozzys son and daughter outside of the show).

Another example would be Britney Spears who lived a very public life a few years back with all her horror stories. Just remember the skirt accident. Her right for privacy was definitly weakened around that time. However today she has decided to live a more silent more private life. Her right for privacy is stronger today. You are not allowed to put a camera under her skirt and check if she got some panties meanwhile.

Summed up a celebrity does have the same rights of privacy as every other human, but the more public they make their private life, the less they can insist on their right for privacy. Its really up the the celebritys behaviour and can even increase/decrease over time (as it happened with Britney).

Hope this helps. Please dont be rude with me if something is unclear. I have just realized that I have a few vocabularies missing.

THIS. THIS. THIS. THIS. Yes, i really, really do hope this helps. Thanks you.

 

[pturtle]

The idea that gaining celebrity/wealth equals a loss in the right to privacy is flawed which is why the post got buried to begin with.

My statement isn't an opinion, I don't think it's right for celebrities to have zero privacy but especially in today's day and age it's almost impossible to keep anything secret, they should know that better than anyone else. Even "regular" people are at risk of being caught doing something stupid and ending up on YouTube.

But can anyone really feel bad that Hulk Hogan got caught? Especially after hearing what he said? Do people actually care more about his privacy than his terrible opinion on a whole group of people?

 

[pturtle]

Pile onto a guy that spoke his mind in a private conversation.

We have all done it.

We're all not public figures that millions of people look up to either. That's the difference.

 

[SAB]

This isn't even as bad the leaked phone call between him and his son after his son caused that car accident.
Seriously, if this particular incident shattered your illusions of Hulk Hogan, you haven't really been paying attention to the last 20yrs....

 

[SwedishHeat]

Do people actually care more about his privacy than his terrible opinion on a whole group of people?

Yes. I'm very concerned with my right to privacy. Because it allows me to have opinions and beliefs that not everyone agrees with.

 

[pturtle]

This isn't even as bad the leaked phone call between him and his son after his son caused that car accident.
Seriously, if this particular incident shattered your illusions of Hulk Hogan, you haven't really been paying attention to the last 20yrs....

Everything he's done in the past 20 years or so hasn't shattered my image on the character Hulk Hogan. I'm able to separate the character from the real man, and this figure looks awesome, I'm not judging people for still being a fan and wanting Hulk Hogan memorabilia, but it is a bit weird that some members here are almost trying to twist things to make him look like a victim.

I'm glad the figure isn't canceled though, it looks incredible.

 

[KingGrayskull]

Are his comments even available or do people simply repeat the media? Not trying to defeend anything but before I judge I usually try to know the facts.

 

[ali032373]

Yes. I'm very concerned with my right to privacy. Because it allows me to have opinions and beliefs that not everyone agrees with.

A right to privacy does not allow you to have opinions and beliefs that not everyone agrees with. You can have those opinions with or without privacy. The privacy is what protects the dissemination of those opinions without your consent.

 

[BurningRage]

It's all a work. Just a heel turn.

 

[dragonsleeper]

Hopefully this controversy doesn't cancel this figure.

 

[Y4NK33 PL4N3T]

My statement isn't an opinion, I don't think it's right for celebrities to have zero privacy but especially in today's day and age it's almost impossible to keep anything secret, they should know that better than anyone else. Even "regular" people are at risk of being caught doing something stupid and ending up on YouTube.

But can anyone really feel bad that Hulk Hogan got caught? Especially after hearing what he said? Do people actually care more about his privacy than his terrible opinion on a whole group of people?

Agree with your first 2 statements. As for the last two questions asked, I don't feel bad for him or agree with his comments.