Hulk Hogan Awarded $115 Million Dollars in Gawker Lawsuit

Mikeybb

Nunc est Durandum
Aug 19, 2014
862
0
0
Exley97 said:
*snipped for space, but detailed and worth checking if you read this*
Just wanted to ask you something if you don't mind.
What would you expect the timescale for the appeal to be processed or reach court to be?

I'm asking as in this and other similar threads you seem quite informed regarding matters legal pertaining to US cases.
I'm not just assuming a lawyerly knowledge on your part because of the dapper suit your avatar is wearing.
Well, not completely anyway.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
You don't have to be a fan of Gawker or Hogan. Just be a fan of justice. Today was a good day.

Now if only the establishment media that are obviously biased towards certain politicians and in pockets of a few billionaires who rule over us would also burn to the ground that would be swell. Gawker and all the shit that they did pales in comparison to what the establishment media does on a daily basis.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
NXNW said:
I'm not sure that you understand the concept of "Justice", or exactly why Gawker is in trouble here. It has nothing to do with political bias, or any kind of bias for that matter.
I didn't say that it does. You didn't understand my post. The second part was just me expressing my desire to see establishment media giants (CNN, FOX, MSNBC etc.) crash and burn because they deserve it as much as Gawker only for different reasons (mostly political corruption and fearmongering).
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
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.
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).
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
Mikeybb said:
Exley97 said:
*snipped for space, but detailed and worth checking if you read this*
Just wanted to ask you something if you don't mind.
What would you expect the timescale for the appeal to be processed or reach court to be?
I honestly have no idea. I'm sure Gawker would like to get this in front of an appeals court as soon as possible, but it can take months or even a year or more before a case gets in front of a three-judge panel. However, the first order of business for Gawker (or so I've read) is to figure out how to reduce the supersedeas bond (a portion of the award granted by the jury) or get a judge to grant a stay for the award until an appeal is heard. If it doesn't get either of those things (and I have no clue what Gawker's chances are for either option) then Gawker will be forced to pay the bond, which could be up to $50 million under Florida state law. I don't know what kind of insurance policies or financing Gawker has, but I think that would be bad news for the company.

I'm asking as in this and other similar threads you seem quite informed regarding matters legal pertaining to US cases.
I'm not just assuming a lawyerly knowledge on your part because of the dapper suit your avatar is wearing.
Well, not completely anyway.
I only know *some* of this stuff from a journalism perspective. I have zero legal training and virtually no knowledge of the law. But I had about a year's worth of journalism ethics and standards course work drilled into my head during college, and it's been an area of interest for me since then, particularly the watershed legal cases for journalism/freedome of speech. And this one is shaping up to join the pantheon of such cases, for better or worse.

And Edmund Exley sends his regards.
 

Supernova1138

New member
Oct 24, 2011
408
0
0
scorn the biomage said:
Czann said:
I'll only miss io9.

And a few Kotaku guys. Just a few.
they'll get bought don't worry. I just hope its a liberal minded corp like buzz feed or Vox media.
Vox already has Polygon to shit up the game industry with, so I doubt they'd want Kotaku. At best they'd maybe want to get Patricia Hernandez so they'd have another token minority on the incredibly white and male Polygon writing staff so they can pat themselves on the back for being inclusive. Buzzfeed would be more likely buyer, assuming the mere association with Gawker doesn't make the Kotaku name so toxic that nobody wants to buy it.
 

PainInTheAssInternet

The Ship Magnificent
Dec 30, 2011
826
0
0
Have to admit, not a fan of tabloids. One less tabloid of any stripe is a victory in my eyes. Though it's hollow because when Gawker goes it'll just be replaced because the problem isn't with the magazine. It's the people that read them.
 

scorn the biomage

Say no too ethics.
Jan 21, 2012
151
0
0
Supernova1138 said:
assuming the mere association with Gawker doesn't make the Kotaku name so toxic that nobody wants to buy it.
kotaku's reputation is no worse than the escapist magazines reputation. currently.
 

johnnyboy2537

New member
Nov 28, 2012
37
0
0
Andy Shandy said:
Sucks that good journalists like Patrick Klepek and Jason Schreier will likely find themselves out of a job because of something that was absolutely nothing to do with them. Plus not to mention that by most accounts Hulk Hogan seems to be a racist, politicking piece of shit.

Buttttttttttt...it absolutely looks to be the right verdict.
That first part is sarcasm right?
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
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!"
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.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
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.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
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.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
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.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
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

And to that point, a question: obviously GamerGaters have been celebrating this decision because it's Gawker and Kotaku (duh) but has anyone see any GGers criticize the decision and side with Gawker in the name of defending free speech?
 

sageoftruth

New member
Jan 29, 2010
3,417
0
0
"Mr. Bollea?s team said the verdict represented ?a statement as to the public?s disgust with the invasion of privacy disguised as journalism,? adding: ?The verdict says, ?No more.? ? "

I feel like crying myself after reading this. It's always been my dream to stick it to the paparazzi. I've avoided pursuing so many career paths simply because I was terrified of fame.