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

91–100 of 176 posts

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#91

Post by dublinben »

SCAQTony wrote: post #83
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.

>nobody wins and Gawker closes

I'm pretty sure the Hulk Hogan team would consider that a victory. If they are able to bankrupt and shutter Gawker, they will be vindicated.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#92

Post by minimaxir »

imron wrote: post #62
minimaxir wrote: post #4

Before anyone goes on a "Gawker is a terrible site, they deserve it" tangent, keep in mind that this does set precedent for other individuals to sue other media companies for massive amounts of money, which could be another problem for an already-struggling ecosystem. (Although in fairness, this incident is particularly egregious, especially as they disobeyed a judge's order to take down the video)

"Gawker is a terrible site, they deserve it" They do deserve it. Not because they are a terrible site, but because of their actions that resulted in this case. This isn't some random act of happenstance that put Gawker in trouble. It was something brought about entirely by their own actions and decisions. It's not a bad thing to have a legal precedent that says you cannot post private sex tapes online, without permis…

Yes, the outcome is fair based on their actions. I'm not disputing that in the slightest. (I added the no-ad-hominem qualifier to avoid getting the comments on this submission derailed. Which was wishful thinking in retrospect.)

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#93

Post by nedwin »

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…

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.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#94

Post by moistgorilla »

tptacek wrote: post #89
moistgorilla wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for the interesting discussion. Anyway after further thought I came to agree with you because the person in the second situation also had their privacy violated twice when they had the video/images stolen from their device and when it was spread without their consent.

But I think it's pretty self-evident that doing multiple wrong things to do one final wrong thing is worse than just doing the final wrong thing.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#95

Post by hluska »

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…

I downvoted both of the comments in which you mentioned your downvotes. Talking about downvotes adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#96

Post by themartorana »

tdurden wrote: post #82

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.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#97

Post by tdurden »

themartorana wrote: post #96
tdurden wrote: post #82

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.

Totally agree on both points - but those kind of comments aren't going to score points with the jurors and influence the case.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#98

Post by skuhn »

nedwin wrote: post #93
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…

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 -- and that those avenues are likely no longer open to him or at least greatly reduced -- it isn't out of the question that he could have earned that amount over the next 20 years.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#99

Post by themartorana »

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…

I'm personally not worried about the 1st. I'm personally not a lawyer either, so there's that...

Ya know how if you buy a car second hand, and it turns out the car is stolen, you have to give it back, even if you bought it honestly?

This feels similar to me. He never gave consent and had a reasonable expectation of privacy. While you can't give him back his privacy here, the video never existed in a public domain sans-crime, so it's publishing (much like your ownership and monetary outlay) is secondary. Except that here, Gawker was a party to the crime.

For me, the 1st doesn't trump privacy. I have no doubt others feel differently.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#100

Post by mc32 »

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 ?

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 reasons. Self preservation and principle.

They'd also get some peer pressure in the form of ostracism for breaking with the standard professional stance on the question.

Post reply on HN