Hulk Hogan Awarded $115 Million Dollars in Gawker Lawsuit

9tailedflame

New member
Oct 8, 2015
218
0
0
Good. Gawker was absolutely in the wrong in this situation. Not to mention they're a garbage company whose existence stands as a testament to human evil.
 

Cryselle

Soulless Fire-Haired Demon Girl
Nov 20, 2009
126
0
0
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.

However...

That doesn't justify what they did. Posting naked pictures or video of a person without their consent is wrong. It's wrong when you do it to women, it's wrong when you do it to men. Rich, poor, good person, bad person, doesn't matter. It seems that the reason for the high amount awarded (and keep in mind, this was awarded by the jury, not by the judge, so the number actually doesn't mean anything just yet) is because they believe that there is no question that Gawker would do it again if allowed the opportunity. The people on the Gawker side went into a court and treated it like an online forum debate, it was obvious that they had no respect for the proceedings or consideration for laws or victims.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
LordLundar said:
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.
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.

There is no way they're getting out of this without at least a considerable liquidation of company assets.
A couple things...

First, Gawker can request the court (both the state court in this trial, and then the appeals court if the state court denies it) for a reduction in the $50 million bond and/or a stay in the judgment in order to appeal (which isn't all that rare, BTW).

Second, the appeals/federal courts have been MUCH more favorable to Gawker than the state court. This is an excellent article that explains the history of the case, but to summarize:
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2016/03/8594339/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115-million-gawker-looks-appeal
* Hogan first filed his lawsuit in federal court in Florida instead of state court, and the judge ruled against Hogan's request to force Gawker to take down his post, citing First Amendment freedom of the press. Hogan withdrew his suit from federal court after that and refiled in state court.
* In state court the judge granted Hogan's request for an injunction against the Gawker post, and Gawker appealed. The Appeals Court, according to this article, a "scathing opinion" of Judge Campbell's injuction order that claimed the injenction "acts as an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment." The Appeals Court also wrote "the mere fact that
the publication contains arguably inappropriate and otherwise sexually explicit content does not remove it from the realm of legitimate public interest." Here's the full appeals court order: http://www.lskslaw.com/documents/DCA%20Opinion%20--%20Clean%20Copy%20(00693029).PDF

And third, in matters of freedom of the press, federal/appeals court are typically much more favorable to the press that state courts (and certainly juries). There's a long list of cases throughout U.S. history where the higher courts have ruled in favor of media organizations (rightly or wrongly)in order to avoid setting any legal precedents on limitations of the First Amendment. 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.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
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
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
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.
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.

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".
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Pluvia said:
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".
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.
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.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Musou Tensei said:
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.
Yeah I'm sure we would have never ever known about these things without your journo gods *rolls eyes*
That's... not even close to fair. Credit goes where credit is due.

OT: Eh. I'm no fan of Gawker, but I'm no fan of Hogan either.
 

anthony87

New member
Aug 13, 2009
3,727
0
0
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?
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
Musou Tensei said:
Andy Shandy said:
Musou Tensei said:
Andy Shandy said:
Sucks that good journalists like Patrick Klepek and Jason Schreier...
They are garbage.


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.
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.
Yeah I'm sure we would have never ever known about these things without your journo gods *rolls eyes*
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.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
Zontar said:
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.
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.
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.
http://www.lskslaw.com/documents/DCA%20Opinion%20--%20Clean%20Copy%20(00693029).PDF

And to be clear, I'm not saying Gawker should have won this case. I think they were in the wrong. And I think the jury probably made the right call (though the award amount was absurd). For me, it comes down to a simple fact: if Gakwer believed this sex tape was newsworthy, then they could have addressed the tape in an article and provided details WITHOUT showing the tape. But they did show the tape, and I think that was wrong.

So you and I might think posting the tape was wrong, tasteless and immoral but other people might not. And courts have generally allowed media organizations and their audiences to determine what is newsworthiness and refrain from setting precedents around taste or morality. And you and I might agree that Denton and Daulerio need to be taken down a peg (or a few) after years of this type of shit, but the courts aren't going to get into those matters and start weighing the case based on who the better citizens are. If they DID do that, then Larry Flynt never would have won Hustler Magazine v. Falwell.

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".
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.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
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.
 

Random Gamer

New member
Sep 8, 2014
165
0
0
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.
There's something else to take into account.
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.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Random Gamer said:
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.
There's something else to take into account.
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.
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.
 

anthony87

New member
Aug 13, 2009
3,727
0
0
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.
From what I've read it seems that Bubba consented to Hogan sleeping with his wife but Hogan was unaware of the camera.
 

Mikeybb

Nunc est Durandum
Aug 19, 2014
862
0
0
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.
Yeah, sad to say it's so, but that's right.
Humans love gossip and I suppose some folks have very different limits on what they want to hear about.
Strike them down and they will rise again.

Hopefully it'll be a new, slightly more restrained form of evil that takes a bit more care with situations like this out of a sense of self preservation.