Hulk Hogan Awarded $115 Million Dollars in Gawker Lawsuit

Mikeybb

Nunc est Durandum
Aug 19, 2014
862
0
0
Exley97 said:
*snipped*

And Edmund Exley sends his regards.
Ah!
So that's who it is.

Thanks for the information.
Not just about the good Detective, the rest of the stuff too.
It sounds like a case that's got a lot of time left in it, even if the interested parties move at as rapid a rate as they can manage.
 

Frission

Until I get thrown out.
May 16, 2011
865
0
0
Exley97 said:
I thought this piece from TechDirt was worth posting here. I'm not sure I entirely agree with everything, but Masnick makes some compelling points regarding the limitations of free speech and the First Amendment, including the following [emphasis NOT mine]:

"It's kind of insane in the first place that there even was a trial at all on the question of "how newsworthy" the tape was. Whether or not you or I think running the tape is appropriate, the fact remains that [strong]courts should never be determining if something is newsworthy[/strong]. That's not the role of the courts, and that's part of the reason why the First Amendment is so clear in barring regulations that restrict freedom of expression or the freedom of the press."

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160318/22445033959/hulk-hogans-115-million-win-against-gawker-raises-serious-first-amendment-questions.shtml
I was always a fan of the saying that one man's liberty ends where another begins. I am equally astounded on the opposite grounds that there needed to be a trial, because from what I've heard they've published without permission a video that was shot in someone's one home. Even among paparazzi, that crosses the line and harms the right to privacy.

If one were to install a secret camera, and film people inside their homes, or even just post the videos made, it's rightfully a crime. Neither the press nor the government nor private individuals have that right.

A case did have a person get into e-mail accounts to post photos on their "revenge porn" site, and was rightfully convicted for both procuring the information and then for posting it without consent.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-25872322

The U.S justice system seems to work on precedents, but in this case it's only a loss for peeping toms, pro-surveillance groups and yellow journalism.

OT: Never heard of the site, but it's been all over media, so I guess it's pretty big news. Have there ever been any bigger settlements for violating privacy, or is this a first?

I agree courts should not decide the newsworthiness of a news-piece, but I think enough ethical violations have been made that it's not worth making this a standard bearer for journalism.
 

eberhart

New member
Dec 20, 2012
94
0
0
Exley97 said:
(...)the fact remains that courts should never be determining if something is newsworthy.
Meh, the alternative is either doing, effectively, nothing to protect privacy or deferring to millions of people, who clicked to see Bolea having sex "therefore it's newsworthy". Which is getting dangerously close to "having a bigger mob".

I'd like to think "even" jury can provide something better than this - if only through answering to a completely different question.

"People who click on this shit" answer to "do I want to peek into private life of others?". People on that jury were suposed to answer to "Would I want to be able to sell it to others" and "Would I want my private life to be sold to others?". There's little doubt which question relates to something important to the public at large, something worth protecting.

Oh, sure, I suspect they were also busy with questions like "wtf is wrong with this guy" or "4 years??" - just how I am aware that value of privacy is dropping like a rock, with people putting more on their Facebook for free. Doesn't mean these are standards worth abiding by, though.
 

Gyrick

New member
Feb 12, 2009
58
0
0
I actually discussed this situation with my lawyer (casually, of course, because we've been friends for an absurdly long time) and we both came to the same conclusion based on the following method: what happens when you take all of the emotion out of the equation? We're left with the following scenario:

---

Two consenting adults have sex while, unbeknownst to either party, they are being recorded by a hidden camera by an unknown(?) third party. The footage was then give/sold to a news outlet who presented footage. When the party on the tape discovered they were on the news outlet, they got a court order to have the video removed, informing them that the tape was illegally obtained; the news outlet refused. The outlet continued to use the video on their site, while mocking the more "famous" of the duo on tape. Due to the contents on the tape, the "famous" person's career was directly affected by loss or work and income.

---

I'll fully admit that I have... issues with how Gawker does business, but this feels, or at least appears, to be a pretty open and shut case.

Frission said:
I was always a fan of the saying that one man's liberty ends where another begins. I am equally astounded on the opposite grounds that there needed to be a trial, because from what I've heard they've published without permission a video that was shot in someone's one home. Even among paparazzi, that crosses the line and harms the right to privacy.

If one were to install a secret camera, and film people inside their homes, or even just post the videos made, it's rightfully a crime. Neither the press nor the government nor private individuals have that right.

A case did have a person get into e-mail accounts to post photos on their "revenge porn" site, and was rightfully convicted for both procuring the information and then for posting it without consent.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-25872322

The U.S justice system seems to work on precedents, but in this case it's only a loss for peeping toms, pro-surveillance groups and yellow journalism.

OT: Never heard of the site, but it's been all over media, so I guess it's pretty big news. Have there ever been any bigger settlements for violating privacy, or is this a first?
I have to admit, I never thought about this from a "revenge porn" angle, but I think @Frission makes a good point.
 

eberhart

New member
Dec 20, 2012
94
0
0
Might be either, husband flip-flopped on this issue and changed testimony to "3rd party had no idea".

Which is even more compelling reason for respecting veil of privacy. Public is now capable of learning about many embarassing facts, while being partially or completely unaware of their context, due to insufficient and/or conflicting data. As a result, they are gawking at personal life while using, potentially, broken glasses.
 

Gyrick

New member
Feb 12, 2009
58
0
0
Pluvia said:
Gyrick said:
Two consenting adults have sex while, unbeknownst to either party, they are being recorded by a hidden camera by an unknown(?) third party.
Actually I heard, just from in this thread mind you (but I think they linked a source?), that they knew they were being filmed and the 3rd party was known seeing as though it was her husband.

I could go back and double check but I'm in a rush. There's only 3 pages though so it won't be hard to find.
I think I found what you were talking about:

Exley97 said:
Corey Schaff said:
Exley97 said:
anthony87 said:
Cryselle said:
Ihateregistering1 said:
Personally, I think this has everything to do with the fact that Hogan is a rich, white, "I love America" male who is a famous Pro-Wrestler, a sport that in the mind of most Gawker-types is something only enjoyed by dumb white trash who vote Republican.
Hulk Hogan is a pretty damn terrible person, it's to be sure.
What did he do that was so terrible?
I think this is a reference to the numerous racial slurs he used on ANOTHER sex tape, and maybe the fact that he slept with Bubba the Love Sponge's wife while he was still married.
Wasn't Bubba the one filming it? I think that's what Hogan alleged. I don't see the terribleness if he was into that sort of thing. I wouldn't do it, but if true it sounds like everyone consented.
Well, I don't think Hogan's then-wife (now ex) consented to or even knew about this arrangement. And if he's into wife-swapping, that's totally fine. But it doesn't sound like there was an even swap, so to speak.

As for the video itself, yes, Bubba has claimed responsibility for filming it, and has changed his story about whether Hogan knew he was being filmed (first he said yes, then during court he said no).
This is sort of a tough call... is it better to believe what somebody says first in public, or second in court (and under oath)? Was he lying the first time, or committing perjury the second? I guess I'm more prone to believe court version myself, but I can see many others interpreting the first one as truth as well.
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
Pluvia said:
Gyrick said:
Two consenting adults have sex while, unbeknownst to either party, they are being recorded by a hidden camera by an unknown(?) third party.
Actually I heard, just from in this thread mind you (but I think they linked a source?), that they knew they were being filmed and the 3rd party was known seeing as though it was her husband.

I could go back and double check but I'm in a rush. There's only 3 pages though so it won't be hard to find.
From a purely legal point of view, I'm wondering if it even matters if Hogan knew he was being taped.

I mean, going back to the 'revenge porn' precedent, if my girlfriend and I make a sex tape, and then break up, that doesn't mean I can then just throw the video online without her permission, regardless of whether she knew she was being filmed or not. I think.
 

JaKandDaxter

War does change
Jan 10, 2009
236
0
0
I'm not a follower of Gawker and don't know much about them except for the occasional crap/decent article on my facebook feed. But after this lawsuit, I looked more into their history as a company. And this Hulk Holgan incident wasn't the first time they were in the wrong and were stubborn to take down an article or video.

They also reportably refused a court order to take down content. So in my books, good for them to potentially be on the verge of bankruptcy and liquidation. While what Hulk did was on the shady side. May this lawsuit be a deterrent to wanna be journalist sites looking for the next clickbait article/news. Perhaps TMZ will be next.
 

Gyrick

New member
Feb 12, 2009
58
0
0
Ihateregistering1 said:
Pluvia said:
Gyrick said:
Two consenting adults have sex while, unbeknownst to either party, they are being recorded by a hidden camera by an unknown(?) third party.
Actually I heard, just from in this thread mind you (but I think they linked a source?), that they knew they were being filmed and the 3rd party was known seeing as though it was her husband.

I could go back and double check but I'm in a rush. There's only 3 pages though so it won't be hard to find.
From a purely legal point of view, I'm wondering if it even matters if Hogan knew he was being taped.

I mean, going back to the 'revenge porn' precedent, if my girlfriend and I make a sex tape, and then break up, that doesn't mean I can then just throw the video online without her permission, regardless of whether she knew she was being filmed or not. I think.
Sorry for the over-quoting, but I'm commenting on my phone. Anyway, I think you're correct; if this is revenge porn, it really doesn't matter if they consented or not to being filmed.

The circumstances are pretty bizarre, that's for sure. Still, I think the jury made the right call. Time will only tell with the inevitable appeal, though.
 

Samechiel

New member
Nov 4, 2009
218
0
0
Exley97 said:
but has anyone see any GGers criticize the decision and side with Gawker in the name of defending free speech?
No, because posting an illegally recorded sex tape on the internet in the interest of generating revenue isn't free speech.


In other news, Gawker has to pay another 15 mil in punitive damages, Denton a cool 10 mil in punitive damages, and Daulerio 100K in punitive damages. So, we finally have a definitive answer to the ages-old question, "What are you gonna do when Hulkamania runs wild on you?"

You're gonna pay out the ass and probably go bankrupt, that's what you're gonna do
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
Pluvia said:
Ihateregistering1 said:
From a purely legal point of view, I'm wondering if it even matters if Hogan knew he was being taped.

I mean, going back to the 'revenge porn' precedent, if my girlfriend and I make a sex tape, and then break up, that doesn't mean I can then just throw the video online without her permission, regardless of whether she knew she was being filmed or not. I think.
Linking to the video (even the edited video) was unequivocally bad. I don't think anyone is really defending that. But Gawker did take that down (note; they should still be punished for that) but they didn't take down the article that talks about it, the one where someone who watched the entire unedited video writes an article on it. And, well, the First Amendment covers freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

The judge seems to think that they shouldn't even be allowed to write an article on it, but the appeals court seems to disagree. The discussion in this thread is generally about that, and how it's possible that the awarded charges will be lowered.
I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if in this day and age 'well we put the video up, but then we took it down' can even be considered any sort of defense. When you think about it, putting up any sort of picture or video on the net is letting the cat out of the proverbial bag, because then people can download it or record it, and now it's basically immortal. At that point, removing it from your website is basically just symbolic.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
Exley97 said:
SecondPrize said:
Exley97 said:
SecondPrize said:
Exley97 said:
SecondPrize said:
If you want a list of better journalists it'll be a long one. It's better just to include everyone who has never mined quotes for an article from a letter refusing comment on the issue, as Klepek has recently done.
I think that's a little unfair. Nowhere in Walton's email does she state the words "no comment" or "off the record." And furthermore, "I don't have time for this, TBH" isn't some code for "This email is off the record."
https://twitter.com/JamieWalton

Klepek identified himself as a reporter and asked for comment. He was very clear about that. If Walton didn't want to comment, she should have said "no comment" or clarified that she was going off the record. But she went on a rant, and Klepek rightfully reported her comments. I would have done the same thing, as would most professional reporters.

Also include every journalist who has never claimed that objectivity is not something the profession should strive for because pure objectivity is an impossibility, as Scheier has done on multiple occasions. It's not a coincidence that this list would include just about every journalist that has ever worked in the field for a publication that had some respectability. Perhaps they all know something that online journalists don't.
Again, I think you're being a little unfair. Here's Schreier's full statement on the matter of journalistic objectivity:
http://tmi.kotaku.com/objectivity-in-journalism-1699347446
Walton's email is the message of someone who doesn't want to comment, there is absolutely no other way to read it. There is nobody I ever worked with in various newspapers that would have ever taken any quotes out of that. Her entire message clearly reads, "This you want to talk about? Fuck off!"

Then with all due respect to your colleagues, they were doing it wrong. Because what they teach you in journalism school, and what organizations like the Associated Press practice, is that comments are on the record unless the source clearly states otherwise.
For example, from the NYU journalism school handbook: "All conversations are assumed to be on the record unless the source expressly requests -- and the reporter explicitly agrees -- to go off the record beforehand."
http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/human-sources/

The AP handbook states: "Reporters should proceed with interviews on the assumption they are on the record."
http://www.ap.org/company/News-Values

In other words, Walton may not have wanted to be quoted, but that's irrelevant. If she didn't say it, then it doesn't matter. As a historical example, look at Watergate and "All the President's Men." I'm sure when then-Attorney General John Mitchell was asked for comment by Carl Bernstein about the Washington Post's Watergate story, he didn't want this comment -- "If you print that, Katie Graham is going to get her t*t caught in a big, fat ringer. And when this campaign is over, we're gonna do a little story on you two boys." -- to be on the record. Obviously, Mitchell didn't want to be quoted threatening members of the press and saying the publisher of the Washington Post was going to have her breast mangled in a clothing dyrer, BUT...he didn't say it was off the record. And that's why Bernstein rightly included it in his reporting.

If Walton was clearly stating she didn't want to comment on the record, then her email would have included those words, or even "fuck off!" -- but they didn't. She's not some rube that's never dealt with the media before. I assume she knows how it works when a reporter asks you for a comment. For whatever reason, she decided to say she didn't "have time for this" and then launched into a rant about how the media ignores her and her cause. It's not the reporter's fault that she did this. All she had to do was respond with two simple words ("no comment") or just ignore the email entirely.

And if you can find me source material that shows journalists must consider statements like "I don't have time for this, TBH" as an explicit statement going off the record, then I'm happy to consider them.

SecondPrize said:
Schreier can go ahead and take any definition of objectivity as it does not relate to the practice of journalism and stick it. It isn't an accident that the whole of the profession which looks down upon online journalism is taught that objectivity should be sought after while reporting. Schreier and his buddies online haven't figured out some special way to do journalism correctly that the rest of us don't get. He's a hack.
I disagree. And I don't think, based on your response here, that you read his full post on the matter.
So you've gone to J-School and you don't think objectivity is worth shooting for.
That's not even remotely close to what I wrote, or think for that matter. You're inferring quite a bit from me pointing out that you're misreading Schreier's argument (intentionally or otherwise) or not reading it at all.
Schreier's argument is simple. He and his hack friends know something professional journalists don't. He's not correct.
 

Disco Biscuit

New member
Mar 19, 2016
105
0
0
Recusant said:
Andy Shandy said:
Plus not to mention that by most accounts Hulk Hogan seems to be a racist, politicking piece of shit.
Disco Biscuit said:
It's weird though, because FUCK that racist hot dog, but he still deserves his privacy.
I don't follow wrestling, so I know next to nothing about it. But (and correct me if I'm wrong here; in that case, my point doesn't apply as much in this specific instance, though it's still something you should bear in mind) didn't Hogan spouting that racist stuff come as a surprise to his fans? That is, his actions didn't reflect this bias? Because if so, you really have nothing to complain about. It's peoples actions that make them worthy of praise or condemnation, not their beliefs. If someone believes that members of other races are inferior to their own, but treats them no differently, there's really no problem there. It doesn't reflect well on them, and there's always the chance that their behaviors will change, but that's true of anyone no matter what they believe.


Judge deeds, not thoughts. Condemning someone for being "racist" is no different from condemning someone for being "Jewish".
If you think a paragraph allowed you to conflate an ethnicity/religion with an attitude, you were wrong.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
chadachada123 said:
That it might mean the end of Jezebel and Kotaku is just icing on this incredibly delicious cake.
Doubt it. Those news outlets can easily deflect off and be their own thing and/or be bought out by another company. They still produce a lot of traffic in general.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
Guilion said:
Not like it matters, he got the job at Kotaku after he was fired from Giant Bomb thanks to his friends over there. He'll find another job thanks to his little circlejerk soon enough.
That's how it usually works. You get jobs because you have connections to people in the industry. Everyone salivating at the mouths of Kotaku writers being out of on the streets and out of a job are kind of petty. They will find work, and that's assuming Kotaku is going to sink with Gawker and not bail out.
 

Recusant

New member
Nov 4, 2014
699
0
0
Disco Biscuit said:
Recusant said:
Andy Shandy said:
Plus not to mention that by most accounts Hulk Hogan seems to be a racist, politicking piece of shit.
Disco Biscuit said:
It's weird though, because FUCK that racist hot dog, but he still deserves his privacy.
I don't follow wrestling, so I know next to nothing about it. But (and correct me if I'm wrong here; in that case, my point doesn't apply as much in this specific instance, though it's still something you should bear in mind) didn't Hogan spouting that racist stuff come as a surprise to his fans? That is, his actions didn't reflect this bias? Because if so, you really have nothing to complain about. It's peoples actions that make them worthy of praise or condemnation, not their beliefs. If someone believes that members of other races are inferior to their own, but treats them no differently, there's really no problem there. It doesn't reflect well on them, and there's always the chance that their behaviors will change, but that's true of anyone no matter what they believe.


Judge deeds, not thoughts. Condemning someone for being "racist" is no different from condemning someone for being "Jewish".
If you think a paragraph allowed you to conflate an ethnicity/religion with an attitude, you were wrong.
Judaism is not an ethnicity; it's a religion. A person may be born in a Jewish community to Jewish parents; this does not mean they are born Jewish any more than it means they are born members of the Republican party. Ethnic religions complicate these things; the fact that so many of the words people use to refer to the Jewish people are used inaccurately or refer to much larger groups doesn't help things any. So, to clarify: Condemning someone for being "racist" is no different from condemning someone for being "an adherent of the Jewish religion".

Is that clearer?

Now to the point you made: I'm not sure how you think "a paragraph" "allows" me to do anything (nor what the paragraph in question is); my ability to assert that racism and Judaism are fundamentally similar is the fact that they are fundamentally similar in that they're both beliefs. A person chooses to be an adherent of a religion in the same sense that they choose to adhere to a set of specific beliefs about people of other racial groups.