How does everyone feel about this? I believe that Gawker will win this case on appeal. Hogan's sex tape may not have been newsworthy but a sex tape can be. And in the interest of government accountability, it should be protected.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3937
they will win it on appeal. The case against Hogan is very strong. I'm biased in that Gawker Media is a daily landing spot for me, but I've read a fair amount on it. Hogan's sex life is newsworthy in that he is a famous celeb who constantly talked about his sex life in the media.
There are a few procedural miscues stemming from the FBI not providing a lot of evidence and the judge ruling a lot of evidence inadmissable. Hogan went after Gawker because he was afraid the other tape (the one where Hogan repeatedly made racist comments) would be disseminated. Hogan tried to argue that the sex talk was as part of his character, when he (Terry Bollea) and his character (Hulk Hogan) are pretty much one and the same. He wore a freaking bandana in court.
There are a few procedural miscues stemming from the FBI not providing a lot of evidence and the judge ruling a lot of evidence inadmissable. Hogan went after Gawker because he was afraid the other tape (the one where Hogan repeatedly made racist comments) would be disseminated. Hogan tried to argue that the sex talk was as part of his character, when he (Terry Bollea) and his character (Hulk Hogan) are pretty much one and the same. He wore a freaking bandana in court.
Appeals only occur when there is an error of law not fact.
For a judgment to be appealed takes a very very long time. From what I gather from the case, it's a balancing act between the first amendment and a man's privacy. Regardless of Hogans talk about his sex life, it does not mean news outlets have an open door to publish sex tapes or nude photos. It would be a very dangerous floodgate as it would mean all of the celebrity nude photo's and videos published will be without repercussion.
IF Gawker does win the appeal, Hogan can still gain the money from the profits made by the video (ad revenue etc) as there is an equitable remedy due to Gakwer's unconscionable conduct resulting in unjust enrichment.
The court Hogan chose was extremely bias towards him, as he chose his home town. But as it's a jury trial, they do not need to have reasons to publish their reasoning. Gawker would need to find an error in law to launch an appeal and it's a very very expensive process. Not to mention they need to bond half of the judgment before launching an appeal.
For a judgment to be appealed takes a very very long time. From what I gather from the case, it's a balancing act between the first amendment and a man's privacy. Regardless of Hogans talk about his sex life, it does not mean news outlets have an open door to publish sex tapes or nude photos. It would be a very dangerous floodgate as it would mean all of the celebrity nude photo's and videos published will be without repercussion.
IF Gawker does win the appeal, Hogan can still gain the money from the profits made by the video (ad revenue etc) as there is an equitable remedy due to Gakwer's unconscionable conduct resulting in unjust enrichment.
The court Hogan chose was extremely bias towards him, as he chose his home town. But as it's a jury trial, they do not need to have reasons to publish their reasoning. Gawker would need to find an error in law to launch an appeal and it's a very very expensive process. Not to mention they need to bond half of the judgment before launching an appeal.
Last edited by Cybargs (2016-03-24 16:09:41)
I can't be the only one who's unwittingly imagining all of this melodramatically taking place in the ring.
Obviously I'm a fan of privacy. I think the sites that hosted the fappening should be sued into the ground too.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Funny enough, Gawker was spearheading the privacy stance when during the fappening. They're the ones telling others that it was an 'invasion of privacy' for all these actresses. But I guess Hulk Hogan's a man so that shit don't count.Jay wrote:
Obviously I'm a fan of privacy. I think the sites that hosted the fappening should be sued into the ground too.
did you not read the part where i said the FBI withheld evidence from the defendants that resulted in certain testimony and affidavits being withheld in front of the jury?Cybargs wrote:
Appeals only occur when there is an error of law not fact.
For a judgment to be appealed takes a very very long time. From what I gather from the case, it's a balancing act between the first amendment and a man's privacy. Regardless of Hogans talk about his sex life, it does not mean news outlets have an open door to publish sex tapes or nude photos. It would be a very dangerous floodgate as it would mean all of the celebrity nude photo's and videos published will be without repercussion.
IF Gawker does win the appeal, Hogan can still gain the money from the profits made by the video (ad revenue etc) as there is an equitable remedy due to Gakwer's unconscionable conduct resulting in unjust enrichment.
The court Hogan chose was extremely bias towards him, as he chose his home town. But as it's a jury trial, they do not need to have reasons to publish their reasoning. Gawker would need to find an error in law to launch an appeal and it's a very very expensive process. Not to mention they need to bond half of the judgment before launching an appeal.
The ad revenue was calculated to be $11,000. The jury awarded Hogan more than he asked for. Hogan's lawyers smartly argued in front of a Florida Court (Hogan is a FL guy) that it was a case of "local self-made man against NYC Madison Ave media conglomerate". You could just as easy argue it as "blogging site vs. wildly successful media personality".
FYI they've already won a few other lawsuits dealing with this, and the appeal has already begun. Gawker took on a minority investment (i think?) last year in preparation for this lawsuit.
Well, I mean their second biggest site is Jezebel so...Cybargs wrote:
Funny enough, Gawker was spearheading the privacy stance when during the fappening. They're the ones telling others that it was an 'invasion of privacy' for all these actresses. But I guess Hulk Hogan's a man so that shit don't count.Jay wrote:
Obviously I'm a fan of privacy. I think the sites that hosted the fappening should be sued into the ground too.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
their reasoning has been consistent, and bringing up the Fappening actually solidifies their position - there are things that are private (like nude photos hacked from people's personal devices), and then there are things worth discourse in the public, like Hogan having sex with his friend's wife fully knowing they were being recorded, and constantly talking about his sex life in a public forum.Cybargs wrote:
Funny enough, Gawker was spearheading the privacy stance when during the fappening. They're the ones telling others that it was an 'invasion of privacy' for all these actresses. But I guess Hulk Hogan's a man so that shit don't count.Jay wrote:
Obviously I'm a fan of privacy. I think the sites that hosted the fappening should be sued into the ground too.
In Libertarianworld no-one has privacy, everyone has unassailable free speech.Jay wrote:
Obviously I'm a fan of privacy. I think the sites that hosted the fappening should be sued into the ground too.
Fuck Israel
I don't see how they're different. If he intended to release it and they preempted him, you might have an argument. If he intended for it to stay private then he has as much right to privacy as Jennifer Lawrence.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
their reasoning has been consistent, and bringing up the Fappening actually solidifies their position - there are things that are private (like nude photos hacked from people's personal devices), and then there are things worth discourse in the public, like Hogan having sex with his friend's wife fully knowing they were being recorded, and constantly talking about his sex life in a public forum.Cybargs wrote:
Funny enough, Gawker was spearheading the privacy stance when during the fappening. They're the ones telling others that it was an 'invasion of privacy' for all these actresses. But I guess Hulk Hogan's a man so that shit don't count.Jay wrote:
Obviously I'm a fan of privacy. I think the sites that hosted the fappening should be sued into the ground too.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
their reasoning has been consistent, and bringing up the Fappening actually solidifies their position - there are things that are private (like nude photos hacked from people's personal devices), and then there are things worth discourse in the public, like Hogan having sex with his friend's wife fully knowing they were being recorded, and constantly talking about his sex life in a public forum.Cybargs wrote:
Funny enough, Gawker was spearheading the privacy stance when during the fappening. They're the ones telling others that it was an 'invasion of privacy' for all these actresses. But I guess Hulk Hogan's a man so that shit don't count.Jay wrote:
Obviously I'm a fan of privacy. I think the sites that hosted the fappening should be sued into the ground too.
yeh Jlaw talks about her dildos, so I guess anyone having photos of her naked is ok coz she talks about her sex life in a public discourse right. Well at least photo's of said dildos.
You should be aware that damages awarded in the US in a Jury trial can also be set by jury. That's why there are cases where the damages far exceed any reasonable amount that 'put's a plaintiff back in his position as far as money can do'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … death.html
lol 23 BILLION dollar in damages.
I think an appeal will severely damage gawker.
Doesn't really fucking help mate wtf why would you ever say that.Even worse, Hogan’s lawyers played a videotaped deposition in which Daulerio was asked what kind of sex tapes he wouldn’t publish. He stated that he would draw the line at children “under four” years old.
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultur … er-lawsuit
it was already released (stolen) by someone before they got their hands on it. Hogan and Bubba settled out of court. Hogan and his lawyer got the FBI involved when someone wanted to extort Hogan. Much of the transcripts behind both instances were not included in the Gawker case or heavily redacted to make the context incomprehensible. Hogan admitted to knowing he was being recorded in official transcripts yet denied the very same thing in the Gawker trial. This is rightfully the argument Gawker will use during the appeal.Jay wrote:
I don't see how they're different. If he intended to release it and they preempted him, you might have an argument. If he intended for it to stay private then he has as much right to privacy as Jennifer Lawrence.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
their reasoning has been consistent, and bringing up the Fappening actually solidifies their position - there are things that are private (like nude photos hacked from people's personal devices), and then there are things worth discourse in the public, like Hogan having sex with his friend's wife fully knowing they were being recorded, and constantly talking about his sex life in a public forum.Cybargs wrote:
Funny enough, Gawker was spearheading the privacy stance when during the fappening. They're the ones telling others that it was an 'invasion of privacy' for all these actresses. But I guess Hulk Hogan's a man so that shit don't count.
Cybargs - I am aware that damages can be awarded by juries - my point was that the "local vs. NYC Mad Men" obviously played heavily in Hogan's favor, as evidenced by the jury awarding MORE than Hogan asked for.
Again...Gawker is already appealing. The appeal isn't going to damage Gawker. Losing the appeal most definitely will.
And yes, if someone posted JLaw's dildos, they would be protected (imo).
Why was it in the public's interest to have the video posted? To humiliate him?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
it was already released (stolen) by someone before they got their hands on it. Hogan and Bubba settled out of court. Hogan and his lawyer got the FBI involved when someone wanted to extort Hogan. Much of the transcripts behind both instances were not included in the Gawker case or heavily redacted to make the context incomprehensible. Hogan admitted to knowing he was being recorded in official transcripts yet denied the very same thing in the Gawker trial. This is rightfully the argument Gawker will use during the appeal.Jay wrote:
I don't see how they're different. If he intended to release it and they preempted him, you might have an argument. If he intended for it to stay private then he has as much right to privacy as Jennifer Lawrence.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
their reasoning has been consistent, and bringing up the Fappening actually solidifies their position - there are things that are private (like nude photos hacked from people's personal devices), and then there are things worth discourse in the public, like Hogan having sex with his friend's wife fully knowing they were being recorded, and constantly talking about his sex life in a public forum.
I know you're a big deadspin fan but I honestly don't think they have a leg to stand on. I think even TMZ would've known better.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i find it strange that KJ thinks it is public interest to know a guy was having an extramarital affair. that seems a bit... medieval? i couldn't give a fuck if my head of state was having an extramarital affair. let that old walnut spunk where he wants.
I wonder if he would have the same stance if it was any female celebrity at all.uziq wrote:
i find it strange that KJ thinks it is public interest to know a guy was having an extramarital affair. that seems a bit... medieval? i couldn't give a fuck if my head of state was having an extramarital affair. let that old walnut spunk where he wants.
Public interest my fucking ass.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3937
What if the extramarital affair was between two public political figures in a way that undermined their ability to perform their jobs? Especially when there is an oversight role? That is the only scenario that I can see someone's sex tape being a matter of public interest.uziq wrote:
i find it strange that KJ thinks it is public interest to know a guy was having an extramarital affair. that seems a bit... medieval? i couldn't give a fuck if my head of state was having an extramarital affair. let that old walnut spunk where he wants.
You can write about it or have a heavily edited version of the video or an 'eight second splice' just to prove a video exists. You do not have to go the full way of publishing said video.SuperJail Warden wrote:
What if the extramarital affair was between two public political figures in a way that undermined their ability to perform their jobs? Especially when there is an oversight role? That is the only scenario that I can see someone's sex tape being a matter of public interest.uziq wrote:
i find it strange that KJ thinks it is public interest to know a guy was having an extramarital affair. that seems a bit... medieval? i couldn't give a fuck if my head of state was having an extramarital affair. let that old walnut spunk where he wants.
Eg, here's proof of two politician's boning with 8 second clip of them together. No need to publish an unedited video. Posting about an existence of a video is different than posting said video.
i forgot you represent the public -at large. It wasn't an extramarital affair either - it was a completely consensual wife-swap and sex tape. I couldn't care less either - i have no interest in what the Hulkster does.uziq wrote:
i find it strange that KJ thinks it is public interest to know a guy was having an extramarital affair. that seems a bit... medieval? i couldn't give a fuck if my head of state was having an extramarital affair. let that old walnut spunk where he wants.
The case isn't about it being in the public interest that a celebrity was having an extramarital affair, nor that a sex tape was disseminated (it wasn't - they posted a clip that lasted around a minute and didn't include any clear sexual contact). There's some simple reading you can do to understand what the arguments are for both sides.
I'm surprised you're commenting without knowing simple details about the case. Very unlike you.
When the case is rightfully thrown out on appeal I will not make a big deal of it. But you all will know you were wrong.
they didn't publish the video you dummy. They wrote about it and provided a heavily edited clip. You're actually arguing against yourself at this point, since you didn't take the 10 mins or so to read up on the lawsuit. Thanks for also commenting on something you clearly know nothing about. That's unlike....wait, no that's actually exactly what you do.Cybargs wrote:
You can write about it or have a heavily edited version of the video or an 'eight second splice' just to prove a video exists. You do not have to go the full way of publishing said video.SuperJail Warden wrote:
What if the extramarital affair was between two public political figures in a way that undermined their ability to perform their jobs? Especially when there is an oversight role? That is the only scenario that I can see someone's sex tape being a matter of public interest.uziq wrote:
i find it strange that KJ thinks it is public interest to know a guy was having an extramarital affair. that seems a bit... medieval? i couldn't give a fuck if my head of state was having an extramarital affair. let that old walnut spunk where he wants.
Eg, here's proof of two politician's boning with 8 second clip of them together. No need to publish an unedited video. Posting about an existence of a video is different than posting said video.
When there's an argument about contract law i'll make sure to ping you. We need to come up with some sort of bat signal for you, just to be sure.
gl to gawker convincing the court not to pay the 50mil bond before they are able to lodge an appeal.
A lawsuit like this can easily bankrupt them.
I think they're most likely going to win on limiting the damages but not reversing the verdict.
A lawsuit like this can easily bankrupt them.
I think they're most likely going to win on limiting the damages but not reversing the verdict.
http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-ta … -481328088KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
they didn't publish the video you dummy. They wrote about it and provided a heavily edited clip. Thanks for also commenting on something you clearly know nothing about. That's unlike....wait, no that's actually exactly what you do.Cybargs wrote:
You can write about it or have a heavily edited version of the video or an 'eight second splice' just to prove a video exists. You do not have to go the full way of publishing said video.SuperJail Warden wrote:
What if the extramarital affair was between two public political figures in a way that undermined their ability to perform their jobs? Especially when there is an oversight role? That is the only scenario that I can see someone's sex tape being a matter of public interest.
Eg, here's proof of two politician's boning with 8 second clip of them together. No need to publish an unedited video. Posting about an existence of a video is different than posting said video.
When there's an argument about contract law i'll make sure to ping you. We need to come up with some sort of bat signal for you, just to be sure.
http://gawker.com/5948770/even-for-a-mi … -it-anyway
They defied a previous court order of an interlocutory injunction.
Being in contempt of court is not really a smart move either.I'm ordering that the Gawker.com remove the sex tape and all portions and content therein from their websites, including Gawker.com. Ordering to remove the written narrative describing the private sexual encounter, including the quotations from the private sexual encounter from websites and including Gawker.com.
Gawker may not have hosted the video, but they have heavily linked it in their articles. In the day of the internet, hyperlinking materials is quite similar to hosting it.
If Gawker started posting links to child porn websites, what do you think would happen?
Defying a court order is extremely stupid. It's not relevant to the appeal.
They never linked the full video. They hosted and linked to a heavily edited version. Let me know how many times this has to be said in order for you to understand. I can probably say it in a few more different ways to help you if needed. FYI it was eventually removed.
I'm not even going to answer your hypothetical. Child porn links compared to sex movie links. OK bro. You're going to be a good lawyer!
They never linked the full video. They hosted and linked to a heavily edited version. Let me know how many times this has to be said in order for you to understand. I can probably say it in a few more different ways to help you if needed. FYI it was eventually removed.
I'm not even going to answer your hypothetical. Child porn links compared to sex movie links. OK bro. You're going to be a good lawyer!
very unlike me? you think i'm going to spend my spare time reading about celebrity sex tapes and gossip websites? frankly I'm surprised you have such a lowest common denominator website on your default internet go-around. i thought that stuff was only interesting to teenage girls and perez hilton.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
i forgot you represent the public -at large. It wasn't an extramarital affair either - it was a completely consensual wife-swap and sex tape. I couldn't care less either - i have no interest in what the Hulkster does.uziq wrote:
i find it strange that KJ thinks it is public interest to know a guy was having an extramarital affair. that seems a bit... medieval? i couldn't give a fuck if my head of state was having an extramarital affair. let that old walnut spunk where he wants.
The case isn't about it being in the public interest that a celebrity was having an extramarital affair, nor that a sex tape was disseminated (it wasn't - they posted a clip that lasted around a minute and didn't include any clear sexual contact). There's some simple reading you can do to understand what the arguments are for both sides.
I'm surprised you're commenting without knowing simple details about the case. Very unlike you.
When the case is rightfully thrown out on appeal I will not make a big deal of it. But you all will know you were wrong.
Well the Gawker editor at the time said he wouldn't publish videos of children only if they're under 4. His words mang.
If Gawker wins the appeal, then all those shit about celebrity nude photos goes down the drain.
dw ken, a lot of my lecturers said I'll make a great lawyer one day
If Gawker wins the appeal, then all those shit about celebrity nude photos goes down the drain.
dw ken, a lot of my lecturers said I'll make a great lawyer one day
Last edited by Cybargs (2016-03-24 18:18:23)