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

Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 176 posts

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#101

Post by whateveridunno »

spriggan3 wrote: post #75

So I see a lot of journalists on twitter defending Gawker. In my opinion Gawker is making journalists look bad at first place. I believe in press freedom but is "revenge porn" freedom of press ? If an unknown party leaked that sex tape, most journalists would condemn that and not label it "freedom of speech" so why the double standard ?

Personally, I think that while Gawker wasn't right to release the tape, fining them $115 million isn't right either. $115 million could easily sink Gawker entirely. I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the place but it's a dangerous precedent to set for press freedom if a single editor's single bad decision can take down an entire site.

Of course, the amount is likely to be revised down in appeals.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#102

Post by fweespee_ch »

hartpuff wrote: post #76
zaroth wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't downvote, but if you want to avoid them you could try using slightly different wording. E.g. sympathizing that a better term isn't readily available, rather than words which some will read as unnecessary criticism and or sounding exasperated. Like, "I wish there was a better term for this, it makes it sound like a rape video." Actually it's hard to find exactly the right succinct term...

Isn't the succinct term (since at least Pam Anderson) "sex tape"? I wrote it the way I did, which I don't think was that bad, because out of about 40 posts, two used the term (which I had never heard of before in this sense) "nonconsensual porn", and they were both by the same poster. What does non-consensual mean in this sense BTW? Does it mean someone is recorded without their consent, or a site publishes someone's…

Fwiw, I was out and the edit window is closed.

Just a suggestion for the future, if you want someone to change the words you may want to mention the change you'd prefer at the time so its an option given HN's edit window.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#103

Post by andrewbinstock »

tdurden wrote: post #82

I am sure Gawker didn't help their case with jurors when they said they would only draw a line at posting a sex tape of a four year old [1]. If they did have a chance of winning this case, they totally shot themselves in the foot with their testimony. [1] http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-tape-...

A lawyer prepping someone for testimony will say: "Remember, your job here is not to score points. All you want to do is to prevent points from being scored." Meaning don't lose your cool, never be glib, never make jokes, don't try to pretend you're smarter than the attorney, don't lie, but most of all, don't state anything more than the minimum necessary to answer the question.

Good advice that's too easily forgotten in the moment.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#104

Post by strathmeyer »

tptacek wrote: post #20

I think @Popehat summed this up nicely: https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/710972390566563845 First they came for Gawker, and I did not speak out. Because fuck Gawker.

When I was in college a girlfriend stole a video she had let me make of us. Should I have to worry about that coming back to haunt me for the rest of my life? Guess I should've taken care of it back then!

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#106

Post by hartpuff »

hluska wrote: post #95
hartpuff wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the succinct term (since at least Pam Anderson) "sex tape"? I wrote it the way I did, which I don't think was that bad, because out of about 40 posts, two used the term (which I had never heard of before in this sense) "nonconsensual porn", and they were both by the same poster. What does non-consensual mean in this sense BTW? Does it mean someone is recorded without their consent, or a site publishes someone's…

I downvoted both of the comments in which you mentioned your downvotes. Talking about downvotes adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

What does trying to bury a post for absolutely petty reasons add to a conversation?

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#107

Post by hartpuff »

jasonlotito wrote: post #85
hartpuff wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the succinct term (since at least Pam Anderson) "sex tape"? I wrote it the way I did, which I don't think was that bad, because out of about 40 posts, two used the term (which I had never heard of before in this sense) "nonconsensual porn", and they were both by the same poster. What does non-consensual mean in this sense BTW? Does it mean someone is recorded without their consent, or a site publishes someone's…

> Hahaha. Someone's upset, downvoting every post of mine here. OT: I didn't downvote this comment, but I do tend to downvote any comment that mentions downvotes out of the belief that it mentioning it completely detracts from the conversation. Frankly, you should edit your comments to remove the downvote remarks.

I generally agree that mentioning downvotes is boring, but so is downvoting for petty reasons.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#108

Post by spoiledtechie »

gregpilling wrote: post #88

So let's see. Hulk Hogan is worth $25M according to the interwebs. His reputation is in tatters for the video of him doing something he did. So he gets awarded almost 5 times as much for lost earnings, as he is worth total? Of course we all know this will go to appeal, where the real fate will be decided. Gawker does not have 115M to pay, and Hulk is not likely to find himself 5x richer. The real question is where do…

Its about the First Amendment encroaching upon the right to privacy. Where is the line drawn. That was what this trial is sincerely about.

Privacy outweighs the first amendment at this stage. But lets remember, that Gawker is a pretty far stretch to say they are living within the 1st amendment rights.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#109

Post by hartpuff »

fweespee_ch wrote: post #102
hartpuff wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the succinct term (since at least Pam Anderson) "sex tape"? I wrote it the way I did, which I don't think was that bad, because out of about 40 posts, two used the term (which I had never heard of before in this sense) "nonconsensual porn", and they were both by the same poster. What does non-consensual mean in this sense BTW? Does it mean someone is recorded without their consent, or a site publishes someone's…

Fwiw, I was out and the edit window is closed. Just a suggestion for the future, if you want someone to change the words you may want to mention the change you'd prefer at the time so its an option given HN's edit window.

I didn't mean for you to edit your posts (I didn't even think of that actually) I meant could you change it for future posts, since you'd already made two posts with that term.

Funny thing is, if anything, I expected people to agree with the sentiment expressed. That it's virtually buried - and the one person who openly agreed, and suggested an alternative, was also downvoted - blows my mind.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#110

Post by [deleted] »

gregpilling wrote: post #88

So let's see. Hulk Hogan is worth $25M according to the interwebs. His reputation is in tatters for the video of him doing something he did. So he gets awarded almost 5 times as much for lost earnings, as he is worth total? Of course we all know this will go to appeal, where the real fate will be decided. Gawker does not have 115M to pay, and Hulk is not likely to find himself 5x richer. The real question is where do…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN