On a side note: I can't find this tape anywhere inline. Quite the cleansing however they pulled that off.
Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes
171–176 of 176 posts
Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes
#172Earlier 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…
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.
Thanks. That's how I understood it after reading a bit more about it, but wasn't 100% sure, so I appreciate the answer. I guess there's no good succinct term that's clear for unusual situations like this.
Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't just about earnings. $55 million was for economic injuries and $60 million for emotional distress.
How do you find a number for emotional distress? I get the feeling numbers in US lawsuits are made up and adjusted for the receiver -- I.e you can sue McDonalds for a larger sum after burning on a cup of coffee than you can the coffee shop on the corner, despite your own costs/damages being the same? Isn't that using a lawsuit as a kind of punishment, something which should be reserved for a criminal case?
No, because you can't put a corporation in prison. Financial punishments are the most effective way we have to punish them.
Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you find a number for emotional distress? I get the feeling numbers in US lawsuits are made up and adjusted for the receiver -- I.e you can sue McDonalds for a larger sum after burning on a cup of coffee than you can the coffee shop on the corner, despite your own costs/damages being the same? Isn't that using a lawsuit as a kind of punishment, something which should be reserved for a criminal case?
No, because you can't put a corporation in prison. Financial punishments are the most effective way we have to punish them.
I think you misread my comment: I don't mind a corporation getting a steep fine -- my point is that it is a punishment and as such it should be handled in a criminal case.
Letting individuals arbitrarily decide punishments and then processing them in civil cases it the crazy part. Not that a corporation can make a mistake and have to pay $100M, that happens everywhere, and that works.
It would be equally crazy if A could sue B and demand B went to prison for 200years for no other reason than A finding it an appropriate amount of time.
Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the Wiener case he was sending the pictures of his crotch via SMS. There's no expectation of privacy from content that you've shared willingly, no matter how perverted the content.
if someone decides to sms bank account info to their spouse, is it then appropriate that their account info is published, because they have no expectation of privacy?
He didn't send it to his spouse, he sent it to non-spouse woman he was flirting with.
It's not the channel of SMS that makes it fair game, it's that he explicitly shared it with a third person. It could have been a telegraph message, a voicemail, or a hand drawn picture. The point is that he publicly shared it.
Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes
#176So 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 ?
There aren't really that many journalism jobs out there. Especially compared to the massive number of J-School grads that come on the the market each year.
Journalists look at Gawker writers and naturally think "There but for the grace of God, go I". So they have a lot of sympathy.