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…
It wasn't just about earnings. $55 million was for economic injuries and $60 million for emotional distress.
I don't think Bollea is a particularly good person, but I'm not clear on how his conduct in this controversy was "contemptible". For the 1A concern here, consider the Anthony Weiner case, in which indisputably private photos of Weiner were also published. I don't like that they were (I think he could have been just as effectively ejected from public life with good writing) but it's concerning to think that he'd have…
As you noted, good writing should be sufficient in a case like Weiner's to eject him from office. Similarly, in a case like Bollea's, good writing should be sufficient to get to the public all that is newsworthy. That good writing can mention that the author has seen the photos or videos, and describe them as necessary to support the story. Of course, if the photos and videos are not published the subject might accus…
I would think that in a case like Weiner's if Weiner says the writer is lying, send him an offical warning that the publication will release the audiovisual proof if he insists. Hilarity ensues.
If Hulk is worth $25m and had his reputation heavily tarnished that effects his future earnings potential. Was he likely to make $115m over the rest of his life? We'll never know.
Only $55m of the amount decided thus far was due to perceived economic damage. Also, punitive damages will be decided next week, and I fully expect they will be quite high given the way Gawker has presented themselves and the internal workings that have been shown in court. The economic damages are perhaps on the high side, but considering all of the ways Hogan has been able to license his brand up to this point -- a…
And not just for his lifetime, but also that of his estate once he passes. Hulk Hogan is, at this point, a brand with merchandise, video rights, and so on.
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-...
I'm pretty sure we can all agree he was being sarcastic and flippant after hours of being on the stand. I'm not making excuses, but the NY Post loves them a way-skewed sensational headline that isn't so grounded in reality.
Of course it was a joke. But what sort of person, in that sort of situation, makes a joke like that?
Forget the NYP completely and watch the video of how it played out on court. He comes off as a complete piece of shit.
Bollea's "porn" wasn't "stolen". It was created without his knowledge and circulated by the person who created it, which is how it leaked. That doesn't remotely describe what happened to the women whose pictures were published a few years back. It's a little disquieting to read a comment that suggests there might have been a free speech angle to the latter story. Bollea's case might (in fact, probably will) be revers…
Is it being created without his knowledge better or wore than what happened in the fappening? I'm not sure what your comment is trying to say. Both things sound pretty horrendous.
He's pedantically pointing out a superficial difference between the two cases, and pretending as though he therefore demonstrated some profound ethical or moral difference between the two. Good job on calling him out on this and pinning him down!
Nick Denton statement on the jury verdict: https://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/710973280308559873 Hulk Hogan statement on the jury verdict: https://twitter.com/HulkHogan/status/710988297284292608
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…
My understanding was that the constitution was only relevant to government action. Since this is a civil lawsuit, the First Amendment should not be relevant, should it?
It's like how the 2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms and the government can't take that away from you but a landlord can keep you from having a gun in your apartment.
If this was a criminal case the First Amendment would be relevant (by my understanding) but since it's civil, it's irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure we can all agree he was being sarcastic and flippant after hours of being on the stand. I'm not making excuses, but the NY Post loves them a way-skewed sensational headline that isn't so grounded in reality.
Of course it was a joke. But what sort of person, in that sort of situation, makes a joke like that? Forget the NYP completely and watch the video of how it played out on court. He comes off as a complete piece of shit.
That one quip really embodies the entire case against Gawker I think. Daulerio was found personally liable as part of this verdict, and he had to know what the stakes were when he testified. By making himself look callous, unsympathic and irresponsible just to satisfy a fleeting desire to be sardonic he did himself zero favors with the jury.
It's not about scoring a zinger against the opposing counsel. It's about putting across your narrative with the jury. I highly doubt Daulerio's legal counsel thought that narrative should be that he's just a grade-A asshole. No surprise that someone who couldn't keep it together when it really mattered to him in a deeply personal way can't be trusted to maintain journalistic integrity during the day-to-day operations of a site.
I'm not sure how I feel about the verdict (freedom of speech vs privacy), but I'm really happy that the media sexist bias was exposed. It was really distasteful how they were criticising and condemning "The Fappening" (i.e. female stolen porn) while happily participating in the reverse (Hulk Hogan's male stolen porn).
Bollea's "porn" wasn't "stolen". It was created without his knowledge and circulated by the person who created it, which is how it leaked. That doesn't remotely describe what happened to the women whose pictures were published a few years back. It's a little disquieting to read a comment that suggests there might have been a free speech angle to the latter story. Bollea's case might (in fact, probably will) be revers…
The news stories weren't very clear on the stolen or not issue - sesutton's comment suggests that it was, but if it wasn't, that indeed would make Hulk's case worse. But only in the "legal" sense (Hulk's video wasn't pirated), not in the moral sense (both his and the girls' privacy was invaded eithout their consent), which is how Gawker et al. campaigned against Fappening... As I said, I was mostly criticising their hypocrisy.
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 ?
It is certainly freedom of the press, and freedom of speech; but ultimately serves no public purpose. It's just also mean and ridiculous.
Freedoms of this nature must be protected regardless of the context. Gawker's unethical behaviour accross the network, from outing comfortably closeted gay people to failing to disclose obvious bias, is awful; but should not be forbidden. The cure is worse than the illness. My apologies to Matt Drudge if it seems like I'm making light of the action as intellectual pornography.