Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#71

Post by Bartweiss »

joering2 wrote: post #39
redthrowaway wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing to see how the left latched onto this as a "billionaire buys lawsuit" narrative, as opposed to the much more accurate "shitty darling of the left that habitually engaged in abuse got its comeuppance" narrative. Gawker repeatedly, knowingly, unabashedly, broke the law. They repeatedly, knowingly, unabashedly, tried to ruin innocent people's lives. They absolutely deserve everything that happened to them a…

> They repeatedly, knowingly, unabashedly, tried to ruin innocent people's lives. Can you actually prove that anyone's life was ruined? They mostly "reported" on sex tapes and other weird stuff, like the origins of Trump's hair. And my opinion, as I can imagine 99,9% of others, about Hogan's wrestling persona or skills has nothing to do with his out of wedlock shenanigans. And if you see a 140MM win from a lawsuit fo…

The primary event for "ruining lives" is the gay rival CEO Denton outed (who was married to a woman), not Hogan.

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#72

Post by Ping938 »

bobwaycott wrote: post #24
redthrowaway wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing to see how the left latched onto this as a "billionaire buys lawsuit" narrative, as opposed to the much more accurate "shitty darling of the left that habitually engaged in abuse got its comeuppance" narrative. Gawker repeatedly, knowingly, unabashedly, broke the law. They repeatedly, knowingly, unabashedly, tried to ruin innocent people's lives. They absolutely deserve everything that happened to them a…

Not disagreeing with your points on Gawker's despicable behavior, but this doesn't answer the question of how the damages were calculated. It also doesn't address the precedent issue, beyond voicing support for exacting revenge as justified.

It was $55 million for economic harm,$60 million for emotional distress and $25M punitive. That sex tape also revealed racist comments made by Hulk Hogan which costed him losing deals and sponsorship.

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#73

Post by danieltillett »

slowernet wrote: post #63
danieltillett wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Denton a complete moron to think this was going to be OK. Given the way Gawker ran the court case the evidence is piling up that Denton is not the smartest tool in the shed.

The court case has not concluded. A gay, foreign media magnate known for publishing lurid expose (in addition to a lot of excellent and funny reporting [1]) was never likely to receive sympathetic treatment from a jury of people from Hulk Hogan's hometown. Let's see how things go on appeal. [1] http://gawker.com/heres-what-gawker-media-does-1779858799

Is anyone in a position to appeal? I was under the impression that Gawker had to cough up a huge amount of cash to be able to appeal.

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#74

Post by pervycreeper »

FireBeyond wrote: post #35
gohrt wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/business/media/gawker-hulk... > The damages awarded to Mr. Bollea on Friday were compensatory: $55 million for economic harm and $60 million for emotional distress. (+$25M punitive) The numbers are nonsense (who has $60M worth of feelings?), but there you go.

I have no idea how $55M in economic harm was reached either. Bollea's net worth, at it's peak, was $25M, and is now estimated at $8M - though most of that has been stripped by divorce, before any of this happened. I am not sure how someone whose likely career income didn't reach $50M can now, in retirement, state that he suffered $50M in purely economic damages from this (remember, the emotional damage is separate, a…

>I have no idea how $55M in economic harm was reached either. >Bollea's net worth, at it's peak, was $25M

It would include potential losses as well. His net worth is irrelevant.

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#75

Post by mqir1anir6 »

vonklaus wrote: post #7

How in the world did the court come up with a $140M sum for the settlement? This seems so excessive, it is actually comical. Obviously, everyone has beleaguered this point, but I feel obligated to state it one more time: Scumbaggery and poor taste shock journalism are pretty shitty, but fuck Peter Theil if he thinks setting a precedent like this is net good for anything other than his petty vendetta. edit: Yes, Gawke…

>How in the world did the court come up with a $140M sum for the settlement? This seems so excessive, it is actually comical.

+1. I feel like supporters of this decision are not really thinking about the numbers and would feel the same whether it was $1M , $10M, or $500M. The numbers are a pretty big part of this story though. I wonder what the largest emotional distress claim ever paid is. Hulk Hogan's distress is not more valuable because he is a celebrity.

I also find the economic damages highly suspect. The defense was not allowed to show the video of Hogan using racial slurs that Gawker also published, which probably hurt his celebrity status more than the sex tape.

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#76

Post by dopamean »

maratd wrote: post #58
dopamean wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He seems like a real asshole to me. Nothing I have read about him has given me the impression that there is anything gentle about him at all.

Actually, Gawker and Denton are the assholes. When confronting assholes, it's easy to be mis-perceived as one.

You say "actually" as if you're trying to correct me in some way...

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#77

Post by paulpauper »

redthrowaway wrote: post #70
jbooth wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what, his libertarian values? While backing Palantir and engaging in stuff like this?

> and engaging in stuff like this? Only the left has a problem with his support of Hogan, because it was an attack on your tribe. Stop assuming the rest of us share your outrage. We don't. Thiel essentially insured Hogan's lawsuit, so that Hogan could proceed without fear of losing millions in legal costs. That's it. Billionaire swoops in and enables aggrieved party to sue evil corporation for abominable behaviour. I…

also the 'left' has Soros, who has more power than Thiel... not a peep about that, too

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#78

Post by paulpauper »

jbooth wrote: post #61
redthrowaway wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Disliking both Gawker and Thiel is one thing that can unite us all. Speak for yourself. I've nothing but respect for Thiel.

For what, his libertarian values? While backing Palantir and engaging in stuff like this?

the use of civil courts is a libertarian value

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#79

Post by jshevek »

vonklaus wrote: post #7

How in the world did the court come up with a $140M sum for the settlement? This seems so excessive, it is actually comical. Obviously, everyone has beleaguered this point, but I feel obligated to state it one more time: Scumbaggery and poor taste shock journalism are pretty shitty, but fuck Peter Theil if he thinks setting a precedent like this is net good for anything other than his petty vendetta. edit: Yes, Gawke…

Is there an actual legal precedent being set by this case? I thought all relevant precedents had been set long ago, and used by orgs such at the ACLU

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#80

Post by jshevek »

bmm6o wrote: post #46
redthrowaway wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing to see how the left latched onto this as a "billionaire buys lawsuit" narrative, as opposed to the much more accurate "shitty darling of the left that habitually engaged in abuse got its comeuppance" narrative. Gawker repeatedly, knowingly, unabashedly, broke the law. They repeatedly, knowingly, unabashedly, tried to ruin innocent people's lives. They absolutely deserve everything that happened to them a…

Not sure where this "darling of the left" thing is coming from. Disliking both Gawker and Thiel is one thing that can unite us all.

There is a subset of the left that absolutely loved Gawker.
Post reply on HN