On the Media – “How a Gossip Blogger Became the Poster Child for First Amendment Rights”

Date: December 10, 2025
Host: Micah Loewinger
Guest: Joel Simon, Author and Founding Director, Journalism Protection Initiative, Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism

Episode Overview

This episode delves into the unexpected role gossip blogger Perez Hilton played in a landmark battle over press freedom and journalistic protections. Through a recent legal case involving Blake Lively, Hilton found himself at the center of a wider debate: Who counts as a journalist in the era of influencers, bloggers, and nontraditional news gatherers? Host Micah Loewinger and guest Joel Simon break down the case, its legal underpinnings, and what it reveals about shifting media landscapes and First Amendment protections.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Who is Perez Hilton?

• Perez Hilton is a longtime gossip blogger and self-fashioned “queen of all media.” He is known both for chronicling celebrity culture and for controversial stunts, including outing celebrities and being a provocateur online.
  • “He’s been a bully. He really went after Britney Spears when she was having mental health issues, and he seemed to really taunt and show a real lack of compassion.” — Joel Simon (01:13)

2. The Case: Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni & the Subpoena for Perez Hilton

• Context: Blake Lively alleged a systematic smear campaign after speaking up about harassment on a movie set. Her team subpoenaed Hilton, looking for evidence he participated in the campaign.
• Hilton’s Involvement: Lively’s lawyers wanted Hilton’s notes and reporting materials, suggesting he might be working with or influenced by Justin Baldoni, the main defendant.
  • "They wanted to see Hilton’s notes and other documents to try and determine if this was true. It was a bit of a fishing expedition..." — Joel Simon (02:51)

3. The Nature of Perez’s Journalism

• Hilton’s coverage was voluminous, rife with mocking nicknames and persistent criticism toward Lively.
  • Audio Clip (04:37): “Shameless and shamtastic... Stanky Blanky and Dick Pool got married in 2012...” — Perez Hilton (as played on air)
• Despite the attitude-laden content, Hilton was also first to publish legal filings and relied on undisclosed sources close to the case.
  • “He was often the first to get that information out there. He relied on the legal filings and then, you know, a kind of network of sources...” — Joel Simon (05:19)

4. Legal Jeopardy & Self-Defense

• Hilton could not afford legal counsel and so represented himself (pro se), using ChatGPT to draft legal briefs—initially with embarrassing results due to “AI hallucinations.”
  • “When he first did it, he told me that his original filing had a bunch of false citations in it.” — Joel Simon (07:20)
  • "It just hallucinated fake cases." — Micah Loewinger (07:31)
  • Eventually, Hilton refined his use of AI, checking all citations. Lawyers later found some of the filings unexpectedly competent.

5. Journalists and Subpoena Protections: Legal Precedents

• The discussion moves to landmark cases (Caldwell, Branzburg) and the development of the “balancing test” — journalists should only have to comply with subpoenas when their information is directly relevant and otherwise unavailable.
• Shield laws were later enacted in many states, but these vary widely:
  • Some states grant absolute protection, others qualified, and definitions of who counts as a journalist differ.
    • “...there are so many definitions of who’s a journalist and who is not a journalist. In some states, it has to do with who employs them... In other states, it has more to do with the function that they perform.” — Joel Simon (10:17)

6. Nevada vs. New York Shield Laws

• Hilton, living in Nevada (strong shield laws), was ruled subject to New York (weaker) law.
  • “The judge ruled that New York state law was applicable. And so... Hilton assumed that he was going to have to comply with the subpoena.” — Joel Simon (11:18)

7. The ACLU Steps In & The Case is Dropped

• A connection through a fan introduces Hilton to the ACLU, which then represents him pro bono.
• Why did the ACLU take the case? To broaden legal precedents and "defend the rights of all sorts of people who are engaged in news gathering in more informal ways," aiming for a more expansive definition of “journalist.”
  • “If they could make the case with Hilton, broaden the definition of who’s a journalist... then they could actually defend the rights of all sorts of people who are engaged in news gathering in more informal ways...” — Joel Simon (12:30)
• When the ACLU joined, Lively's team dropped the subpoena. Reasons speculated include bad PR optics, not wanting to face ACLU legal firepower, or having obtained the necessary information elsewhere.
  • “What Hilton told me was that they didn’t like the PR. They didn’t like the optics of taking on the ACLU because they perceived themselves as the victim.” — Joel Simon (14:09)

8. The Broader Question: Who Counts as a Journalist?

• The case spotlights the need to reconsider legal definitions in a fragmented media ecosystem where journalists, livestreamers, and influencers overlap.
• Simon argues for broadening protections:
  • “...we can’t build institutional barriers that only protect certain kinds of journalism, especially at this moment, when so much important journalism... is being done more informally.” — Joel Simon (16:11)

9. Examples of Non-traditional Journalism

• Mario Guevara: Live-streamed immigration enforcement, later deported—journalism activities outside traditional employment.
• Darnella Frazier: Citizen’s video of George Floyd’s murder—“a fundamentally journalistic activity.”
  • “That video transformed history in a way, and that was a fundamentally journalistic activity.” — Joel Simon (17:20)

10. Debating Scope of Protections

• Pros: Broad protections cover critical social value work by non-traditional actors.
• Cons: Risks diluting hard-won journalist freedoms, making it easier to erode those rights.
  • “The most salient argument is that journalists have fought long and hard to create a legal framework... If we expand those protections to everyone, pretty soon we might have them for no one.” — Joel Simon (21:24)

11. Why Defend Perez Hilton?

• Even unsympathetic actors deserve legal protection to ensure robust press freedom as media evolves.
  • “If that means... journalists who maybe don’t practice the profession with the highest ethical standards also receive some level of legal protection, so be it. That is a trade off I am willing to make.” — Joel Simon (22:24)

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Perez’s role:
  “He’s also been a consistent chronicler of the celebrity beat and the gossip beat, which, of course, is a historic part of journalism.” – Joel Simon (01:56)

• On AI legal filings:
  “When he first did it, he told me that his original filing had a bunch of false citations in it.” – Joel Simon (07:20)

• On shield law complexity:
  “Depending on where you live and the kind of journalism you do, you may or may not have shield law protections.” – Joel Simon (10:56)

• On the necessity of expanding protections:
  “The protections available to ensure that people can conduct this activity need to be extended as broadly as possible.” – Joel Simon (16:33)

• On the tradeoffs of broader protections:
  “That is a trade off I am willing to make.” – Joel Simon (22:24)

Highlight Timestamps

• 00:26: Episode introduction & Perez Hilton background
• 02:51: Details of the Blake Lively subpoena and Hilton’s alleged involvement
• 04:37: Clip of Perez Hilton’s coverage/tone
• 07:00: Hilton represents himself using ChatGPT for legal briefs
• 08:17: Historical context: Caldwell/Branzburg and shield laws
• 11:04: State law differences in shield protections
• 12:30: ACLU’s rationale for representing Hilton
• 14:09: Subpoena dropped, speculation as to why
• 17:04: Nontraditional journalism, examples and risks
• 21:24: Arguments against broadening legal journalist definition
• 22:24: Joel Simon on defending even unsympathetic figures

Conclusion

The episode uses Perez Hilton’s case as a window onto pressing debates about who counts as a journalist in the digital age, how legal protections apply, and whether broadened definitions create more risks or rewards for public interest journalism. The discussion intertwines historical context, present-day cases, and forward-looking questions—emphasizing the stakes for anyone engaged in news gathering, no matter how unconventional.