Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

Post by icebraining » Sat, Mar 19, 2016, 10:06 AM UTC

Veratyr wrote: post #117

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…

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…

Post by icebraining » Sat, Mar 19, 2016, 10:16 AM UTC

imron wrote: post #67

MajesticHobo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like Gawker either. But seeing people praise this decision merely because Gawker sucks, while casually dismissing other concerns, including the serious First Amendment ramifications, makes me very uneasy.

What serious First Amendment ramifications are these? The First Amendment doesn't give you free reign to say whatever you like whenever you like, and there are already limitations on the First Amendment with regards to things like obscenity and speech that appeals to prurient interests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... Posting a private sex tape without permission is not likely to pass…

Post by JupiterMoon » Sat, Mar 19, 2016, 10:23 AM UTC

clevernickname wrote: post #122

mc32 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because they feel like they have to close ranks and defend a profession they see as being maligned. For them there is no grey, only black and white. All or nothing. For many other people there are degrees of freedom and rights. Their fear is that if they concede on this point, what else will they have to concede and will their profession back them when they are in the same position, but for more noble reason…

Being maligned by whom? "Journalists" get to control the narrative on literally any topic they choose. They had to fuck up really hard to get the rest of the press to report against them, and even then this case isn't receiving anywhere near the coverage it deserves.

Post by JupiterMoon » Sat, Mar 19, 2016, 10:28 AM UTC

Crito wrote: post #73

the_ancient wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Miranda did not create any rights, only the requirement that the government inform you of your rights...

If the government is required do something for you ( "inform you of your rights" , in this case), then wouldn't it be reasonable to say you say that you have the right to that service? Miranda created the right to have the government inform you of your rights.

Post by makomk » Sat, Mar 19, 2016, 10:52 AM UTC

JupiterMoon wrote: post #135

clevernickname wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being maligned by whom? "Journalists" get to control the narrative on literally any topic they choose. They had to fuck up really hard to get the rest of the press to report against them, and even then this case isn't receiving anywhere near the coverage it deserves.

And breaking ranks on an issue like this could be the mess up that gets the rest of the press to report against them in the future...