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

161–170 of 176 posts

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#161

Post by fweespee_ch »

hartpuff wrote: post #109
fweespee_ch wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair enough, I'll try to keep it in mind.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#162

Post by jessaustin »

alkonaut wrote: post #159
abiox wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if/when mcdonalds gets dinged with amounts more suitable to a mom 'n pop shop, they give zero shits.

I'm aware. But if I sue someone it's to cover my damages, not damage the other party. If McD were found liable for causing injury you'd think someone in management would be held responsible in a criminal case and there is a risk of the individual and or the corporation being fined a huge amount by a criminal court. The difference is that a multi million fine would be awarded by a criminal court, since it is a punishm…

...to cover my damages, not damage the other party.

If this were the normal thought process, vastly fewer lawsuits would ever be filed. Lots of things can happen to a plaintiff. Sure, she could win, in which case her attorneys' fees are typically subtracted from the damages. She could also lose, in which case she typically has to pay the attorneys. She could also lose in such a fashion that she could suffer other economic penalties as well. If compensation were the best possible outcome from a lawsuit, many potential plaintiffs would just go to Yelp with their complaint about McDonald's.

Of course, that might be a better society in which to live, but it would be a very different society.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#163

Post by alkonaut »

jessaustin wrote: post #162
alkonaut wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware. But if I sue someone it's to cover my damages, not damage the other party. If McD were found liable for causing injury you'd think someone in management would be held responsible in a criminal case and there is a risk of the individual and or the corporation being fined a huge amount by a criminal court. The difference is that a multi million fine would be awarded by a criminal court, since it is a punishm…

...to cover my damages, not damage the other party. If this were the normal thought process, vastly fewer lawsuits would ever be filed. Lots of things can happen to a plaintiff. Sure, she could win, in which case her attorneys' fees are typically subtracted from the damages. She could also lose, in which case she typically has to pay the attorneys. She could also lose in such a fashion that she could suffer other eco…

> vastly fewer lawsuits would ever be filed

I suppose, and this would be a net win for everyone, except lawyers?

> many potential plaintiffs would just go to Yelp with their complaint

Again isn't that a positive thing? If you feel a law was broken you tell the police, if it wasn't, you post a bad review?

> that might be a better society

Isn't the US legal system the odd one? I might be wrong here. What's the lawyers-to-population ratio or legal-fees-per-lifetime compared to other systems? I admit I have no data but my gut says "not good".

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#164

Post by PhasmaFelis »

whateveridunno wrote: post #101
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.

I realize this judgment was based only on this case, but from my perspective, this isn't a single bad decision, but the latest in a series of bad decisions. Gawker posted an entirely unsubstantiated prostitution allegation against a competitor's executive, from a source who said straight up (in the article Gawker published!) that he was going public to make good on a blackmail threat. [1] They posted a video of a young woman possibly being raped, and told her to "not make a big deal out of this" when she begged them to take it down. [2]

Gawker was 100% in the wrong to release this tape, and they've shown a pattern of seriously abusive behavior before now. Some of sites in the Gawker network have decent writers with some integrity, and I'll be sorry that if need to find new employment; but Gawker as an entity is too corrupt to be salvaged.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Cond.C3.A9_Nast_CFO_pro... [2] http://nypost.com/2016/03/11/blah-blah-blah-gawker-editor-bl...

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#165

Post by jessaustin »

nradov wrote: post #105

Most of Gawker is terrible, but if the company goes down I hope Jalopnik survives in some form. They write good articles about cars and racing, and appear to maintain high ethical standards. http://jalopnik.com

I expect every "sub-property" will be sold to someone, although perhaps not for much money. Perhaps some other car-focused site will make the trustee an offer...

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#166

Post by jessaustin »

alkonaut wrote: post #163
jessaustin wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...to cover my damages, not damage the other party. If this were the normal thought process, vastly fewer lawsuits would ever be filed. Lots of things can happen to a plaintiff. Sure, she could win, in which case her attorneys' fees are typically subtracted from the damages. She could also lose, in which case she typically has to pay the attorneys. She could also lose in such a fashion that she could suffer other eco…

> vastly fewer lawsuits would ever be filed I suppose, and this would be a net win for everyone, except lawyers? > many potential plaintiffs would just go to Yelp with their complaint Again isn't that a positive thing? If you feel a law was broken you tell the police, if it wasn't, you post a bad review? > that might be a better society Isn't the US legal system the odd one? I might be wrong here. What's the lawyers-…

Oh yeah I agree this would be a vast improvement. I don't think it will happen while the current Constitution remains in force, however. Certainly there's no legal way to rein in the lawyers.

Preemptive for the "just send a letter to Congress" simpletons: for the half of Congress who aren't themselves lawyers, why will my letter be more persuasive than the very active lawyer lobby that gives them millions of dollars? Why will the lawyer president not veto your magical bill? Why will the lawyer judges in every court in the land not overturn it?

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#167

Post by venomsnake »

abiox wrote: post #154
venomsnake wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It is freedom of the press. Leaking the tape to the public should be punishable, but just broadcasting information obtained should not be. Gawker did not produced said sex tape. On a personal level I would love to see Gawker the company fold - but punishing media for publishing true facts is troubling. After all Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Wiener also had their privacy invaded. The idea of a media outlet being sue…

> but just broadcasting information obtained should not be. Gawker did not produced said sex tape. someone give gawker your bank account details, and gawker decides to publish. it's okay for gawker to do this?

Generally speaking yes. I can publish it right here. If you want to send money to my IBAN - feel free to do it. I won't mind.

And yes - I will have case against the person that gave information to gawker. But not against gawker themselves.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#168

Post by hartpuff »

hluska wrote: post #148
hartpuff wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Upvotes and downvotes aren't about burying/promoting content. They're about maintaining a certain baseline of quality. Talking about downvotes is flat out boring and it adds nothing to the conversation. Therefore, I'm disengaging from this conversation and strongly encourage you to do the same.

>Upvotes and downvotes aren't about burying/promoting content. They're about maintaining a certain baseline of quality.

You can maintain quality without encouraging or enabling negativity (downvoting). Simply upvote comments you think are quality.

The fact that not only was my comment downvoted, but also a comment agreeing with me, demonstrates that people were downvoting because they have a different point of view (which I personally believe is the main reason people downvote anywhere, including here), or for some other petty reason.

My annoyance with this is not just because a reasonable comment of mine was buried, it's because I see this happen all the time here. Totally reasonable comments being whited out at the whim of a couple of people, for whatever reason they like, is irritating and detrimental to a thread and to the site.

>Talking about downvotes is flat out boring and it adds nothing to the conversation.

And the best way to avoid that is don't allow downvotes for comments in the first place. They're not necessary, they encourage negativity rather than positivity, and they're wide open to be abused/misused.

>Therefore, I'm disengaging from this conversation and strongly encourage you to do the same.

Fair enough. Like you, I will also disengage from this conversation after having said what I wanted to say.

Edit: and 3 more downvotes (across multiple comments, not just this one) immediately (within a few minutes) after posting this, simply for having the audacity to reply to a post to me, thus proving my point about abusive, petty downvoting.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#169

Post by asdfzxc »

venomsnake wrote: post #167
abiox wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but just broadcasting information obtained should not be. Gawker did not produced said sex tape. someone give gawker your bank account details, and gawker decides to publish. it's okay for gawker to do this?

Generally speaking yes. I can publish it right here. If you want to send money to my IBAN - feel free to do it. I won't mind. And yes - I will have case against the person that gave information to gawker. But not against gawker themselves.

Bank account details would also have info on how you choose to spend your money though, and not just your account number.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#170

Post by zaroth »

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…

Apparently in this case it means both... The recording was allegedly made without Hogan's consent and also published without his consent. So perhaps "unauthorized sex tape" but that doesn't really get the point across either.
Post reply on HN