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

81–90 of 176 posts

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#81

Post by CPLX »

danso wrote: post #35

I've long stopped reading Gawker for serious news or even entertainment...but I'm going to miss it as it is possibly the only independent online media outlet that actually made a profit. BuzzFeed might make a profit but NBC(Comcast) owns $200M of it [1]. Vox, too, got $200M from NBC [2]. Vice, as far as anyone can tell, is not near profitability (it just started its own TV channel), and has $400M from Disney [3]...an…

Don't forget the awesome Gabe Snyder in your list. I felt like the editorial integrity fell off a cliff right after his departure.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#82

Post by tdurden »

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-...

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#83

Post by SCAQTony »

danso wrote: post #35

I've long stopped reading Gawker for serious news or even entertainment...but I'm going to miss it as it is possibly the only independent online media outlet that actually made a profit. BuzzFeed might make a profit but NBC(Comcast) owns $200M of it [1]. Vox, too, got $200M from NBC [2]. Vice, as far as anyone can tell, is not near profitability (it just started its own TV channel), and has $400M from Disney [3]...an…

Gawker made"...In 2009 $60 million in advertising revenues and more than $30 million in operating profit. ..." Wikipedia

When it goes to appeal I am sure the number will be negotiated downward or nobody wins and Gawker closes.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#84

Post by rodgerd »

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 ?

Well, the Gawker empire already answered that question: they were highly critical of Reddit for hosting /r/fappening (rightly so, in my opinion), so it's more than a little rank to do an about face on this.

I certainly agree that it's difficult to see anything resembling a meaningful public interest in publishing the tapes - I'm surprised but pleased to see that the US courts didn't do their normal "you're a public figure so you have no rights" as tends to be the case with defamation or privacy cases.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#85

Post by jasonlotito »

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…

> 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.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#86

Post by acheron »

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…

Complaints about downvotes are offtopic and pointless. I doubt it's "someone's upset", it's just general downvoting of offtopic posts.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#87

Post by magicalist »

Analemma_ wrote: post #10
teach wrote: post #2

Good for him. I think Jerry "Tycho" Holkins expresses best how I feel about Gawker in this whole affair. https://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2016/03/14/the-didact...

Ugh, no thank you. I've liked some of Jerry's opinion pieces in the past, but I think he's way off the mark here, especially with this: > The causes they enunciate are tarnished, just for being in their mouths. That's the kind of thinking that gets you atrocious policy, especially in the judicial sphere. As I said below, people who want bad to enshrine bad precedent will pick the most unsympathetic targets in the cou…

> That's the kind of thinking that gets you atrocious policy, especially in the judicial sphere

Er, he's calling them a bottom feeding tabloid rag. What does that have to do with policy or precedent?

(notably that post was from four days ago, not in reaction to the ruling)

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#88

Post by gregpilling »

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 does the First Amendment end up with this ruling? That is the change (or not) that would matter most to the average citizen.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#89

Post by tptacek »

moistgorilla wrote: post #71
rco8786 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While both are horrendous, I think we can say that having intimate photos of you taken without your knowledge being spread is worth than having photos you took being spread. The reason being that in the first case your rights to privacy were actually violated twice.

No.
Post reply on HN