""Seeing the video tape of someone having sex is very different from journalists writing about it," Danielle Citron, author of the book Hate Crimes in Cyberspace, told Mashable. If Gawker successfully argues that publishing the video was necessary, then Citron says the "end implication" is that "there's no privacy in anything, which I don't think we're prepared as a society to say."
Gawker could counter by essentially saying that "seeing is believing," Eric Goldman, an Internet law professor at Santa Clara University, told Mashable. Without the video, Gawker could argue that readers would say the outlet misinterpreted its contents, or that it was making up details.
Citron said Hogan hasn't given up his right to sexual privacy. Sure, he's talked about his sex life a lot, but she said there's a difference between talking about sex and watching someone fumble around the bedroom."