State judge slapped with ethics complaint for “inappropriate” TikTok videos; New Jersey Monitor, July 3, 2023

DANA DIFILIPPO, New Jersey Monitor; State judge slapped with ethics complaint for “inappropriate” TikTok videos

"A state Superior Court judge is in trouble after he allegedly posted videos to TikTok of himself lip-syncing racy songs in the courthouse, lying half-clothed in bed, and in other situations a judicial ethics panel found objectionable.

Judge Gary N. Wilcox, who’s assigned to the Bergen County vicinage, posted 40 videos over a two-year period to a public account under the pseudonym “Sal Tortorella,” and 11 of them “were inappropriate and brought disrepute to the Judiciary,” the state Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct wrote in a 5-page formal complaint filed Friday and announced Monday.

The videos were objectionable because of their content (profanity and references to violence, sex, and misogyny), location (the courthouse, his judicial chambers, or a bed), or his physical appearance (in his judicial robes and/or partially unclothed in bed), the committee wrote...

It also violates the judicial code of conduct, including one rule requiring judges “to conduct their extrajudicial activities in a manner that would not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge, demean the judicial office, or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties,” the committee noted."

Privacy versus speech in the Hulk Hogan sex tape trial; Los Angeles Times, 3/14/16

Erwin Chemerinsky, Los Angeles Times; Privacy versus speech in the Hulk Hogan sex tape trial:

"Indeed, this case reflects how the changing notions of privacy in society make it much harder to decide what would be offensive to the reasonable person and what isn't of public concern.

But juries, it's said, make decisions based on emotion, on the gut. Accordingly, St. Petersburg jurors may ultimately find it hard to accept that Gawker's speech rights reach into Bollea's bedroom, notwithstanding the plaintiff's lewd persona. There is a difference, after all, between talking about sex and watching it.

If the jury sides with Bollea, 1st Amendment absolutists will worry about the “chilling effect” the verdict may have on speech, and will claim it's impossible to draw a line between permissible and impermissible expression. Speech is speech.

But I can imagine a clear rule: No videos of people having sex should be made public unless all of the participants consent. I think the media will survive the restriction."