Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker Lawsuit


goodhelmet

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hogan is a racist, homophobic twat, but even racist, homophobic twats have a right to privacy, so while I am sure that gawker will try to be very self-righteous here, the fact is that they are in the wrong.

 

The irony is that we only know that Hogan is a racist, homophobic twat is because he went all the way with this lawsuit. I'm still not sure that was the smart play if Gawker was willing to offer him a decent settlement to go away. There's still a very good shot that he ends up with nothing (the appeals court generally has been much more sympathetic to Gawker's arguments, pretty much overturning every ruling of Judge Pamela Campbell's in favour of Hogan, who clearly has acted in a very partisan fashion, as was federal court before he moved his lawsuit to state court), or so little that it wasn't worth the public embarrassment that came from pursuing the litigation.

 

I'd be much more "Yay for Hogan" if he hadn't settled with Bubba in return for $5,000 and help with the Gawker lawsuit, who comes off as a much greater sleazebag than anybody on the Gawker side with the possible exception of A.J. Daulerio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

115 million seems a staggering amount of money given the circumstances, but I know next to nothing about law or compensation... is that the kind of amount that is usually agreed in these kinds of public interest vs privacy cases? I know I've heard it referred to as a possible landmark case when it comes to these things but I know nothing about law or compensation...

And after you've answered that we'll move onto my lifelong bemusement at why sofas are so fucking expensive when its some cloth, some foam and some wood...

(I know the answer is capitalism and surplus value extraction really, but you get what I mean)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sum is way above average for damages awarded to a single individual, but not unheard-of. Remember that some class-action civil suits against big corporations have netted much more than that; like the infamous Big Tobacco judgement which ended up fining them over two hundred billion dollars.

 

As for Gawker: fuck 'em, they got what they deserved. I don't care who the person is nor how famous they are, nothing gives you the right to distribute their sex tape against their will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The award was also influenced by dog whistling by the judge during jury selection (going off off on a tangent about the quality of online journalism today whilst telling the jury pool to avoid news coverage of the case) and the direction she gave to jurors before deliberations:

 

 

Campbell, according to observers sympathetic to Gawker, delivered instructions to the jury that defied legal precedent in cases involving news organizations—namely, she rejected the notion that the First Amendment usually is a more powerful consideration than privacy when it comes to public figures.

 

Instead, Campbell told the jury that there is a balance between the right of free speech and the intrusion into private lives—instructing the jurors to determine the difference between what “ceases to be the giving of legitimate information to which the public is entitled and becomes a morbid and sensational prying into private lives for its own sake.
According to knowledgeable observers, that was practically a direction to find for the plaintiff.

 

Emphasis mine. It's also worth noting that the judge accepted a clearly inappropriate question submitted by a juror about whether Emma Carmichael had intimate relations with Nick Denton or A.J. Daulerio. Whatever you think of Gawker, it's hard to believe that they had a genuinely fair trial. It certainly wasn't a great day for the American justice system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a big part of it was Hulk and the judge wanting to make an example out of Gawker. Not only did he lose tons money and have irreparable damage to his long-term due to the tape filmed without his consent, but Gawker acted like total dicks about it because they thought the first amendment made them invincible. I agree that it would have been a lot easier for Hulk if he just asked for a settlement and kept the tape out of the news, but he did the right thing by giving the case a proper trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The award was also influenced by dog whistling by the judge during jury selection (going off off on a tangent about the quality of online journalism today whilst telling the jury pool to avoid news coverage of the case) and the direction she gave to jurors before deliberations:

 

 

Campbell, according to observers sympathetic to Gawker, delivered instructions to the jury that defied legal precedent in cases involving news organizationsnamely, she rejected the notion that the First Amendment usually is a more powerful consideration than privacy when it comes to public figures.

 

Instead, Campbell told the jury that there is a balance between the right of free speech and the intrusion into private livesinstructing the jurors to determine the difference between what ceases to be the giving of legitimate information to which the public is entitled and becomes a morbid and sensational prying into private lives for its own sake.

 

According to knowledgeable observers, that was practically a direction to find for the plaintiff.

Emphasis mine. It's also worth noting that the judge accepted a clearly inappropriate question submitted by a juror about whether Emma Carmichael had intimate relations with Nick Denton or A.J. Daulerio. Whatever you think of Gawker, it's hard to believe that they had a genuinely fair trial. It certainly wasn't a great day for the American justice system.

How many of those prior cases are comparable to the news outlet obtaining a sex tape that was filmed without the guy's consent and posting it for millions to see? With the role Gawker played in getting this sex tape out there and keeping it out there, it is an important thing to consider if they actually were just using their right to free speech to report something news-worthy or actively invading someone's privacy for clicks.

 

Also, one of Gawker's former editors mentioned during the trial that his cut-off for posting celebrity sex tapes was four years old. Sarcastic or not, something like that seems far more damaging to their case than anything the judge said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One theme I'm noticing in the response: Hogan's lawyers did a tremendous job convincing the jury and the public that Gawker (both the flagship site and the parent company) is just a gossip site and literally nothing else. That and/or a LOT of people online legitimately don't care that the staff of Deadspin (the current, post-Daulerio version), Kotaku, Gizmodo, io9, LifeHacker, etc., none of which are gossip sites, could lose their jobs. (Gam-rG-te supporters aside). Hell, when it was pointed out that the flagship site team that well received article by Adam Lanza's mother, Hogan lawyer Kenneth Turkel said it didn't count because they didn't write it! Because only staff writers count I guess?

 

Whatever you think of Gawker, Denton, or Daulerio, they didn't get a fair trial. The judge was fine with reading an irrelevant slut shaming juror question to Emma Carmichael for fucks sake. Whatever you think of Gawker, this was not a remotely fair trial on MANY levels.

 

And whatever you want to say about Daulerio, he didn't deserve getting branded as a child molester, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He probably should have chosen his words on the stand a lot more carefully, then. According to the AP, this guy said the only situation where a sex tape would not be newsworthy is if it included a child under the age of four...and that he doesn't think it's a bad thing to publish a sex tape without the participant's consent. If Gawker media goes down the tubes because of this lawsuit, it's because of that moron's brilliant management skills more than anything.

 

I have a hard time mustering up any sympathy for anybody involved in either side of this situation...Hogan, Bubba, Denton, Daulerio, the whole thing was like one big sleazebag parade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trial was a fiasco of sorts. But when a website boasts that they're going to defy a judge's court order based on their own interpretation of the first amendment (see link below), they can't be surprised when it comes back to bite them in the ass.

 

http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Gawker, Judge Pamela Campbell clearly overstepped the mark when she ordered Gawker to "remove the written narrative describing the private sexual encounter, including the quotations from the private sexual encounter from websites and including Gawker.com," which is why they kept the post up but took down the video. A federal judge in Florida had already denied Hogan's injunction and Campbell's judgement was later overturned in the appeal courts, due to the First Amendment. I'd agree though that flipping the bird to the trial judge wasn't a smart strategy, but three years ago Gawker clearly believed this was never going to trial (and really who could blame them if they knew at that point there was another sex tape being shopped around with Hogan using racial slurs).

 

Hogan's lawyers also misrepresented their case at trial claiming that they had never tried to take the article itself down and were only bothered about the video being published rather than the written narrative of the encounter when their original lawsuit specifically asked for the article to be taken down too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He probably should have chosen his words on the stand a lot more carefully, then. According to the AP, this guy said the only situation where a sex tape would not be newsworthy is if it included a child under the age of four...and that he doesn't think it's a bad thing to publish a sex tape without the participant's consent. If Gawker media goes down the tubes because of this lawsuit, it's because of that moron's brilliant management skills more than anything.

Daulerio is still an idiot for saying that, but here's the context:

 

When asked when a celebrity sex tape wouldn't be newsworthy, he says if the celebrity was a child. The inference is clearly the legal definition: Under 18. Hogan's lawyer then asks something like "under what age." The Gawker lawyer doesn't object with "asked and answered" (not sure why), so Daulerio, clearly annoyed at effectively being re-asked the question, replies with an annoyed, sarcastic "Four." He clearly never thought the case would ever go to trial. He screwed up and I'm not a fan if his, but he's not a pedophile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he's a pedophile either, at all. I think you and I are probably in agreement about this issue.

 

I guess what irritates me about this story is the fact that trying to be glib while under oath is incredibly arrogant and quite frankly, mind-bogglingly stupid. When you testify in any sort of court proceeding, you know (and your legal counsel should remind you) that every single thing you say (and how you say it) is going to be subject to intense scrutiny and interpretation.

 

Daulerio was either too stupid to know how his comment was going to backfire in his face, or too arrogant to care. I do understand that it is opposing counsel's job to try and trip you up and provoke exactly such a reaction, which makes him doing it all the worse. Hogan's lawyers must have been overjoyed when he reacted like that. He had to know that he should be giving short, precise answers and keeping his opinions to a minimum.

 

It was Daulerio's arrogance and Gawker Media's arrogance that got them in this mess, so as I said I am having a hard time feeling sorry for them, even though it looks like the judge was biased against them from the get go. Once again, if what I have read is true, Gawker was basically thumbing their nose at the judge from the moment lawyers got involved in this situation, and it came back to bite them in the ass in a huge way.

 

It sounds like the general consensus is that Gawker will be able to get this decision reversed or reduced on appeal, but even getting to that point will cost them a small fortune. I would hope that Denton is placing the blame for most of this on Daulerio's shoulders, but I don't know if that has been covered anywhere or if anybody knows the real reaction is behind the scenes at Gawker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're all in agreement that Daulerio's sarcasm was really dumb. However, it should be noted that in late 2013, when Daulerio's videotaped deposition took place, Gawker were probably unduly confident that this would never go to trial because they believed it would get dismissed on First Amendment grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching Hogan switch between blaming certain words on Terry Bolea and others on Hulk Hogan was both interesting and sad. I can't believe pro wrestling kayfabe was used while Hogan was under oath and no one called bullshit. I understand the whole privacy issue and that sucks for anyone, but its hard to feel bad for a serial racist and huge homophobe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned before that I think Gawker was in the wrong for doing what they did,but that doesn't mean I feel sorry for Hogan for the humiliation and the criticism and all the flak and potential financial damage he got as a result. Petty of me, I know, but when I hear someone say outright that they are racist, along with using racial and homophobic slurs, I am not going to feel sorry for them when someone else being an asshole cause them to get fucked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel sorry for Hogan, but I feel way less sorry for Gawker. And frankly I don't care how they lost the case or if the judge was too hard on them, they had it coming anyway. We've long needed stronger regulation on the paparazzi portion of the media in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The judge was fine with reading an irrelevant slut shaming juror question to Emma Carmichael for fucks sake.

 

I was really confused by this until I read that day's NYMag story that explains that in Florida, jurors are allowed to ask witnesses anonymous questions. Because Florida may genuinely be the weirdest place on Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...