Hulk Hogan Awarded $115 Million Dollars in Gawker Lawsuit

Disco Biscuit

New member
Mar 19, 2016
105
0
0
Recusant said:
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.
You didn't even do 10 seconds of checking to make sure that you weren't making an obviously wrong statement? Bold choice Cotton.

https://www.quora.com/Are-Jewish-people-part-of-an-ethnicity-a-race-a-religion-or-all-of-the-above

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F

http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm

http://www.beingjewish.com/identity/race.html

I could go on, but you have Google too, right?

Corey Schaff said:
Just goes to show that this is where Gonzo Journalism ends; when you piss off somebody powerful enough to punch back, and you no longer have a foundation of seeking objectivity to fall back on as a defense and a way to rally public support.

Doing the Hunter S. Thompson thing can be good, but not if everybody's Hunter S. Thompson.
Don't compare the bird shit that Gawker cranked out with Gonzo Journalism.
 

Metalix Knightmare

New member
Sep 27, 2007
831
0
0
Exley97 said:
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?
Love to know how the "right" to post a sex tape that you were already ordered by a judge before to take down is much of a free speech issue.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
Metalix Knightmare said:
Exley97 said:
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?
Love to know how the "right" to post a sex tape that you were already ordered by a judge before to take down is much of a free speech issue.
First, a correction -- Gawker was ordered by a judge to take down the post featuring the video, but Gawker appealed the injunction and it was overturned by an appealate court.

Second, if you *really* would love to know, you should try reading the appeals court ruling on that overturned injunction, which states, among other things:
* "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."
* "It was within Gawker Media's editorial discretion to publish the written report and video excerpts."
* "it is the primary function of the publisher to determine what is newsworthy and that the court should
generally not substitute its judgment for that of the publisher."
* "the temporary injunction acts as an unconstitutional prior restraint on Gawker Media's protected speech."
http://www.lskslaw.com/documents/DCA%20Opinion%20--%20Clean%20Copy%20(00693029).PDF

And besides the TechDirt piece, here are a few more arguments from the media.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-21/sorry-hulk-hogan-the-first-amendment-is-on-gawker-s-side
http://observer.com/2016/03/gawkers-right-to-be-obnoxious-is-worth-defending/
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/20/why-hulk-hogans-victory-over-gawker-is-a-stain-on-the-first-amendment/
http://www.thenation.com/article/does-hulk-hogans-lawsuit-against-gawker-really-threaten-freedom-of-the-press/
 

Recusant

New member
Nov 4, 2014
699
0
0
Disco Biscuit said:
Recusant said:
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.
You didn't even do 10 seconds of checking to make sure that you weren't making an obviously wrong statement? Bold choice Cotton.

https://www.quora.com/Are-Jewish-people-part-of-an-ethnicity-a-race-a-religion-or-all-of-the-above

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F

http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm

http://www.beingjewish.com/identity/race.html

I could go on, but you have Google too, right?
No, I don't. I don't "have" Google; what I have is NOTHING TO DO WITH them. The fact that an idea is popular doesn't make it right; it just makes it popular. Cats didn't actually spread the black death, the Spanish had nothing whatsoever to do with the 1918 flu epidemic, and Jews aren't an ethnicity. Google will happily tell you otherwise; such is the benefit of bubbled search results. I do, however, have access to real search engines. We don't need them at the moment, though; we have logic, so let's use that.

Specifically, let's look at the part of my previous post where I said "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". By way of a breakdown of what I meant, here are the most commonly used terms I was referring to: "Hebrew" refers to a language, its alphabet, and the group of people who developed and spoke it; this is a linguistic term, not an ethnic one. "Semite" refers to descendants of the eldest son of Noah; this is an ethnic term, but refers not to only to the proto-Jews, but to the Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Arabs as well. "Israeli" refers to a single country and its inhabitants; "Israelite" is much the same (whether they count as the same country is another matter, and is splitting hairs in any case).

Judaism is an ethnic religion, which, as I again said above, "complicate things". It is not, however, an ethnic-exclusive religion. Compare it to Zarathustranism. They don't allow converts and don't allow marrying outside the faith; not exactly a recipe for good genetic longevity. If you start measuring from the reforms of the 8th century BC, you've got about 1400 years during which "Zarathustran" meant "Persian" (this changed with the Arabic, and, consequently, Islamic invasion of Iran). If you'd approached a Zarathustran cleric and asked about converting, you'd've been laughed at.

If, by contrast, you go and find a local rabbi and ask about converting, you will not be laughed at; you be asked questions and possibly given some literature. This is because Judaism is a thing you can convert to, and after you've finished the conversion, you will be a Jew. You will not be a Semite (unless you were before). You can convert to Islam; that won't make you an Arab. Yes, it's true that most Jews are of a particular ethnic background. That doesn't mean it's a requirement.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Exley97 said:
* "the temporary injunction acts as an unconstitutional prior restraint on Gawker Media's protected speech."
http://www.lskslaw.com/documents/DCA%20Opinion%20--%20Clean%20Copy%20(00693029).PDF
Gawker thinking its a freedom of speech issue does not mean it is freedom of speech issue, and two courts have disagreed with them about it being freefom of speech.

Recusant said:
snip about jews religion and race
There is actually significant evidence to show that Juadaism followers have genetics different enough to make them a distinct ethniticity/race. Wikipedia has a pretty coincide writeoff about the studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jewish_origins

Of course that is probably going to change now that the rules for becoming a jew are more lax (you no longer have to be born to Jewish parents to become one) and different ethniticities are going to adapt Judaism.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
Strazdas said:
Exley97 said:
* "the temporary injunction acts as an unconstitutional prior restraint on Gawker Media's protected speech."
http://www.lskslaw.com/documents/DCA%20Opinion%20--%20Clean%20Copy%20(00693029).PDF
Gawker thinking its a freedom of speech issue does not mean it is freedom of speech issue, and two courts have disagreed with them about it being freefom of speech.
The three judges on the appellate court panel would disagree with you. Again:
"The circuit court's order granting Mr. Bollea's motion for temporary injunction is reversed because it acts as an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment. Reversed."

Also, I'm not sure that's correct about two courts disagreeing. And acctually, two courts have agreed that the Gawker post falls under the First Amendement's freedom of speech -- the aforementioned court of appeal, and a federal judge who denied Hogan's first motion to take down the post when Hogan originally filed his lawsuit in federal court instead of state court. Here's the ruling, which in part states: "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that even minimal interference with the First Amendment freedom of the press causes an irreparable injury."
http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/files/2016/03/hoganvgawker-whittemorePIruling.pdf

So again, there's reason to believe this is in fact a freedom of speech issue, and there's evidence to suggest that Gawker's optimism about the ruling being overturned in federl court is not unfounded.
 

Disco Biscuit

New member
Mar 19, 2016
105
0
0
Terminalchaos said:
Disco Biscuit said:
Don't compare the bird shit that Gawker cranked out with Gonzo Journalism.
Yeah, yellow journalism is the more apt comparison. Weekly World News shows how this is all done correctly. I'd believe a Weekly World News article before I'd believe a Gawker rant.
Thank you! Comparing Gonzo to Gawker is like comparing a Jackson Pollock to a dirty diaper.

Recusant said:
Disco Biscuit said:
Recusant said:
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.
You didn't even do 10 seconds of checking to make sure that you weren't making an obviously wrong statement? Bold choice Cotton.

https://www.quora.com/Are-Jewish-people-part-of-an-ethnicity-a-race-a-religion-or-all-of-the-above

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F

http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm

http://www.beingjewish.com/identity/race.html

I could go on, but you have Google too, right?
ship
I didn't need to read all of that for you to tell me that you reject anything that isn't your opinion.
 

rednose1

New member
Oct 11, 2009
346
0
0
Meh, I kinda wish there was a way both parties could lose. Gawker was in the wrong, but the chick Hogan was sleeping with was his best friend's WIFE. Both parties should be whipped. (Extra ones for Gawker though, the stupid celebrity nude dump had them pissing and moaning about people's privacy. Hypocrites.)
 

TechNoFear

New member
Mar 22, 2009
446
0
0
Gyrick said:
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:
Did your lawyer express any concern that the court was effectively deciding what was in the public interest / was newsworthy?

And so the ruling set a very bad precedent, one that will walk all over free speech / freedom of the press?
 

TechNoFear

New member
Mar 22, 2009
446
0
0
BuildsLegos said:
But if you think "the press" has the right to kill peoples' careers based on misleading information
Nothing Gawker published about Hogan was 'misleading' or incorrect.

If it was then the case would have been about defamation, not privacy.

Please try to stick to the facts of matter at hand and try to stop your emotions clouding your reasoning.

BuildsLegos said:
It's been long-established at this point that Hogan's sex-tape was a private matter and therefore never a matter of freedom.
It has not been 'long established' the tape was private, this case was to decided that exact issue.

Are matters relating to Bill Cosby's sex life also private?

Or are they newsworthy and so protected under the 1st amendment?
 

Gyrick

New member
Feb 12, 2009
58
0
0
TechNoFear said:
Gyrick said:
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:
Did your lawyer express any concern that the court was effectively deciding what was in the public interest / was newsworthy?

And so the ruling set a very bad precedent, one that will walk all over free speech / freedom of the press?
Here is my attorney's response:

"The courts are to give wide leeway to news organizations as to what is or is not newsworthy. As the courts are the guardians of the 1st amendment but also to the right and expectation of privacy. While public figures have the right to privacy reduced they still have a right. There is no clear standard for what constitutes newsworthiness but a good standard is: "does the information relate to any mater of political, social, or other concern to the community?" For the first part the social, the more public a matter the more deference given, as the matter becomes more private the less likely to be newsworthy. There also needs to be a direct link to the newsworthiness of the topic and the person, this applies to the political aspect as well. The political question of course concerns directly with current politics or current political landscapes. Other concerns is a broad term and rightfully so, again this standard applies to the public nature vs the private nature of the content, a public person's content is fair game the more public the content. Previous celebrity sex tapes, meant to be private have been ruled to not be newsworthy. Indeed it has been held that even celebrities have a expectation of privacy for private intimate matters.

tl;dr version: Courts give leeway to news organizations under the 1st amendment and the right to privacy. The more private a mater, and the less directly relevant to politics, the less newsworthy."
 

TechNoFear

New member
Mar 22, 2009
446
0
0
Gyrick said:
tl;dr version: Courts give leeway to news organizations under the 1st amendment and the right to privacy. The more private a mater, and the less directly relevant to politics, the less newsworthy."
So you and your lawyer think that it is not in any way newsworthy that a man who made millions from his reputation as an 'American Hero' is a racist who cheats on his wife?