Hulk Hogan is a pretty damn terrible person, it's to be sure.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.
A couple things...LordLundar said:Yes they do have the right of appeal. Which they have to post a bond for $50 million (it's supposed to be the full amount but there's a cap of $50 million) before they can. Then if they lose the appeal (which is a pretty good chance because there really is nothing there they can argue) the appellate court can tack on additional damages.FileTrekker said:Gawker still have the right of appeal yet, so I don't think their demise will happen overnight; assuming they loose in the appeals court though, then yeah, it's probably goodnight Vienna. The damages awarded are already, what, about 115x their annual revenue? So yeah.
There is no way they're getting out of this without at least a considerable liquidation of company assets.
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."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.
Again, I think you're being a little unfair. Here's Schreier's full statement on the matter of journalistic objectivity: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.
I don't know, this was a pretty open-and-shut case of violation of an individual's privacy that not one person realistically expected Gawker to win. While they may manage to appeal the decision enough to only have most of their assets lost from this trial instead of all of them, having openly defied a court order (and making an article gloating about it) to take the video down makes it pretty much impossible that even if an appeal succeeds it wouldn't only be a reduced payout instead of a victory. And with Gawker already being in a hard financial state (their new office is on a 10 year no-opt-out lease that they could only afford on an assumed continued growth in the market, a growth that has not occurred) even a reduction to only 20 million dollars (an appeal that I think is unrealistically high) would brake them.Exley97 said:So as much as I hate a smug Nick Denton and A.J. Daulerio, their confidence about Gawker's chances on an appeal is not without merit.
The issue was never that Gawker posted that the video existed. If they had they and every other tabloid rag would be having a constant stream of lawsuits for every time a celebrity sex tape was posted online or nudes leaked.Pluvia said:I don't think it was Gawker that filmed it, so the supreme court would be ruling on whether freedom of the press and freedom of speech means they can write an article on it.Zontar said:I have my doubts if it managed to go that far the supreme court would lean towards "you have the right to film people having sex and post it online against their will".
That's... not even close to fair. Credit goes where credit is due.Musou Tensei said:Yeah I'm sure we would have never ever known about these things without your journo gods *rolls eyes*Andy Shandy said:I'm sure you have some examples of better ones then? But from what I've seen a lot of big scoops - like this one about the PS4.5 [http://kotaku.com/sources-sony-is-working-on-a-ps4-5-1765723053] or this one about no mainline Assassin's Creed this year [http://kotaku.com/sources-next-big-assassins-creed-set-in-egypt-skippin-1750937895] - tend to come from either Klepek or Schreier. So yeah, in response to your video, I am serious.
What did he do that was so terrible?Cryselle said:Hulk Hogan is a pretty damn terrible person, it's to be sure.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.
Ah yes, because I'm saying they are not garbage totally equals them being journalistic gods. But you're right, we probably would've found out those things eventually. But what about issues at Crytek [http://kotaku.com/sources-crytek-not-paying-staff-on-time-ryse-sequel-d-1594967505]? Or what exactly goes on with E3 demos [http://kotaku.com/the-real-stories-behind-e3-s-glossy-game-demos-1710169104]? Or what happened with Destiny [http://kotaku.com/the-messy-true-story-behind-the-making-of-destiny-1737556731]? Could others have hypothetically found this stuff out? Sure. But they don't. So if Klepek and Schreier are "garbage", I shudder to think what that makes everyone else.Musou Tensei said:Yeah I'm sure we would have never ever known about these things without your journo gods *rolls eyes*Andy Shandy said:I'm sure you have some examples of better ones then? But from what I've seen a lot of big scoops - like this one about the PS4.5 [http://kotaku.com/sources-sony-is-working-on-a-ps4-5-1765723053] or this one about no mainline Assassin's Creed this year [http://kotaku.com/sources-next-big-assassins-creed-set-in-egypt-skippin-1750937895] - tend to come from either Klepek or Schreier. So yeah, in response to your video, I am serious.Musou Tensei said:They are garbage.Andy Shandy said:Sucks that good journalists like Patrick Klepek and Jason Schreier...
This has to be the final nail in Gawker's coffin, I wish it would have been Gamergate, which already cost them a lot of money, but whatever brother.
But that's just it -- it's not an open-and-shut case. Or at least, the appeals court didn't think so. That's why it overturned the injunction. Read the appeals court brief, particularly the parts where they cite Hogan previously discussing his private/sex life, and the specifics around how the tape was made, distributed and shown on Gawker.Zontar said:I don't know, this was a pretty open-and-shut case of violation of an individual's privacy that not one person realistically expected Gawker to win. While they may manage to appeal the decision enough to only have most of their assets lost from this trial instead of all of them, having openly defied a court order (and making an article gloating about it) to take the video down makes it pretty much impossible that even if an appeal succeeds it wouldn't only be a reduced payout instead of a victory. And with Gawker already being in a hard financial state (their new office is on a 10 year no-opt-out lease that they could only afford on an assumed continued growth in the market, a growth that has not occurred) even a reduction to only 20 million dollars (an appeal that I think is unrealistically high) would brake them.Exley97 said:So as much as I hate a smug Nick Denton and A.J. Daulerio, their confidence about Gawker's chances on an appeal is not without merit.
Three things: First, Gawker didn't film Hogan, and that's an important distinction in the eyes of the appeals court. Second, it wasn't the full tape, just an exceprt with only a few seconds of actual sexual activity (again, the appeals court saw that as an important distinction). And third, the Supreme Court lately hasn't exactly had a great track record affirming the right to privacy, sadly.Zontar said:Plus if the appeal did succeed in some twist of cosmic comedy, then the supreme court would likely get involved because it would be setting precedent of which rights are more important: freedom of speech that violates privacy, or right to privacy that puts limitations on freedom of speech. I have my doubts if it managed to go that far the supreme court would lean towards "you have the right to film people having sex and post it online against their will".
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.anthony87 said:What did he do that was so terrible?Cryselle said:Hulk Hogan is a pretty damn terrible person, it's to be sure.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.
There's something else to take into account.Zontar said:While they may manage to appeal the decision enough to only have most of their assets lost from this trial instead of all of them, having openly defied a court order (and making an article gloating about it) to take the video down makes it pretty much impossible that even if an appeal succeeds it wouldn't only be a reduced payout instead of a victory. And with Gawker already being in a hard financial state (their new office is on a 10 year no-opt-out lease that they could only afford on an assumed continued growth in the market, a growth that has not occurred) even a reduction to only 20 million dollars (an appeal that I think is unrealistically high) would brake them.
You know, I hadn't thought about that but you're right, even if they do somehow survive as a business through this ordeal, their reputation as a company is ruined so it's unlikely they'll be able to get anything beyond generic marketing packages that any company can get (and that pays much, much lower then targeted advertising). And that's on top of their new HQ being on a 10 year lease they can't afford as is because they didn't experience the future growth they had projected and needed to see happen to keep the place.Random Gamer said:There's something else to take into account.Zontar said:While they may manage to appeal the decision enough to only have most of their assets lost from this trial instead of all of them, having openly defied a court order (and making an article gloating about it) to take the video down makes it pretty much impossible that even if an appeal succeeds it wouldn't only be a reduced payout instead of a victory. And with Gawker already being in a hard financial state (their new office is on a 10 year no-opt-out lease that they could only afford on an assumed continued growth in the market, a growth that has not occurred) even a reduction to only 20 million dollars (an appeal that I think is unrealistically high) would brake them.
Have you read the comments in articles and forums about the ruling? I haven't a single one that was truly supportive of Gawker. Even those who say they hate Hogan think Gawker is undeserving trash; even those who think Gawker might not get destroyed in appeal think Gawker's leadership is awful.
In the unlikely case where they win the appeal, they'll still get destroyed, because there won't be anyone who will want to advertise there. Some people observe all that fuss and they will take note that there doesn't seem to be any person left, apart of those actually working for Gawker, to think they deserve to be saved and they have anything worthy to contribute to society, information or even entertainment.
From what I've read it seems that Bubba consented to Hogan sleeping with his wife but Hogan was unaware of the camera.Corey Schaff said: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.Exley97 said: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.anthony87 said:What did he do that was so terrible?Cryselle said:Hulk Hogan is a pretty damn terrible person, it's to be sure.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.
Yeah, sad to say it's so, but that's right.MarsAtlas said:Much smaller, if not completely defunct by this point in time. You didn't need a clickbait title to get people to view the article with the Hulk Hogan sex tape. People heard it and wanted to see it. Gawker is filling a hole in the market. I'm not saying their actions are morally justifiable, I'm just pointing out that it exists because of shit people and even if Gawker goes down something else will take its place.