Gawker Founder Nick Denton pens op-ed on Hulk Hogan verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ElectricBlanketFire

Member
Long story short: They did nothing wrong.

Gawker said:
The enormous size of the verdict is chilling to Gawker Media and other publishers with a tabloid streak, but it is also a flag to higher courts that this case went wildly off the rails. The plaintiff’s lawyers, with the occasional assist from our witnesses, successfully painted Gawker as representative of an untrammeled internet that good and decent people should find frightening and distasteful. Emotion was permitted to trump the law, and key evidence and witnesses were kept from the jury.

A state appeals court and a federal judge have already held repeatedly that the 2012 commentary and short video excerpt, which joined an existing conversation and explored the public’s fascination with celebrity sex tapes, were newsworthy. We have had our day in trial court, and we lost. We will have our day back in appeals court, and we will be vindicated.

I had suspicions, but it is now clear that Hogan’s lawsuit was a calculated attempt to prevent Gawker, or anyone else who might obtain evidence of his racism, from publishing a truth more interesting and more damaging than a revelation about his sex life.
Click to expand...

And here's the kicker:

Gawker said:
Celebrities, especially ones as public about their personal and sex life as Hulk Hogan, have a narrower zone of privacy than ordinary people. Regardless of questions about Gawker’s editorial standards and methods, self-promoters should not be allowed to seek attention around a specific topic and then claim privacy when the narrative takes an unwelcome turn. The benefits of publicity come at a price; and for someone like Hogan, whose whole life is a performance, it’s a full-time and long-term commitment.
Click to expand...

Good work, idiot.
 
from publishing a truth more interesting and more damaging than a revelation about his sex life.
Click to expand...
Makes a lot of sense when you consider they held back that piece of information until he started the second lawsuit on that sex tape,.
 
What a dick. I hope the higher court keeps the damages above $50 million and bankrupts this piece of shit site into oblivion. Hogan's a terrible person, but being a terrible person is not license to have a media company profit off of an unauthorized sex tape of you and act like first amendment heroes for doing so.
 
tabloid trash said:
Celebrities, especially ones as public about their personal and sex life as Hulk Hogan, have a narrower zone of privacy than ordinary people.
Click to expand...
Basically, that slut was asking for it.

For morally pure investigative journalism about racism, of course.
 
Celebrities, especially ones as public about their personal and sex life as Hulk Hogan, have a narrower zone of privacy than ordinary people.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah, no. He might be a dick, whatever, but don't try and excuse being a papparazo.
 
The real, and actually embarrassing, reason Hogan sued Gawker to begin with was hidden from the jury, from the public, and from me, while he put on a show about being violated by the publication of nine seconds of his sex life, after years of boasts about his prowess on talk radio and shows like Howard Stern.
Click to expand...

this is pretty much why i hate them. "he's a celebrity with a public persona therefore we can decide for ourselves that he has no inner life as a person and can't possibly feel any damage from a sex tape being shown to world. "
 
Celebrities, especially ones as public about their personal and sex life as Hulk Hogan, have a narrower zone of privacy than ordinary people.
Click to expand...

Basically 'Don't wear a miniskirt if you don't want to be harassed'.

Get fucked Gawker.
 
From a legal standpoint...should this guy be publishing anything about the case? Presumably Gawker don't want to jeopardize an appeal.

What do Gawker have to gain from giving an op-ed when the dust has yet to settle? I mean they're already in the shit for having loose lips.
 
So you got hit with a civil ruling making you liable for $150M dollars.

And you STILL can't just take the L and own up to it?

God damn son.
 
Lol. Gawker continuously doubling down on being fucking scumbags even in the face of everyone around them being thoroughly disgusted at said scumbaggery.

Keep digging that grave.
 
Fuck you Gawker, you are worst than buzzfeed and TMZ. I seriously hope Hogan takes you for all you're worth and more.
 
For what its worth, I would be not surprised at all to find that the verdict gets reduced by a lot.

I don't think the verdict will be overturned. Gawker's argument is that Bubba the Love Sponge's testimony (either in-court or his FBI testimony) would have changed something, but their actual argument is bad: Bubba said that Hulk knew about the sex tape when he talked to the FBI, but Bubba was under investigation for blackmail at the time (so he had an incentive to lie) and he testified that Hulk didn't know about the tape during the processing of the Gawker trial.

The problem with Gawker's argument is that even if Bubba's hearsay statement (this is relevant because hearsay is typically not admissible) was admitted, even giving Gawker the benefit of the doubt about Bubba's credibility (he has none, as he testified two different things) it isn't a "smoking gun" to establish Hulk knew about the tape.

I mean, I don't know all of the legal arguments involved, but I would be highly surprised if the appellate division found that even Hulk Hogan doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy while he's fucking his buddy's wife.
 
This guy is everything that's wrong with journalism. Everyone but Gawker seemed to see this coming from miles away. If it wasn't Hogan it would have been someone else.
 
Bartholomew said:
From a legal standpoint...should this guy be publishing anything about the case? Presumably Gawker don't want to jeopardize an appeal.

What do Gawker have to gain from giving an op-ed when the dust has yet to settle? I mean they're already in the shit for having loose lips.
Click to expand...

He owes a good deal more than his company is worth. I don't see how he can make it much worse outside of murdering Hulk Hogan. But yes, legally it's probably iffy. You're not really meant to discuss it outside of the court-room, certainly not in such an open and emotional way.
 
Bartholomew said:
From a legal standpoint...should this guy be publishing anything about the case? Presumably Gawker don't want to jeopardize an appeal.

What do Gawker have to gain from giving an op-ed when the dust has yet to settle? I mean they're already in the shit for having loose lips.
Click to expand...

Web sites, especially ones as public about celebrities' personal and sex lives as Gawker, have a narrower zone of privacy than ordinary tabloids.
 
Celebrities should be the victims of sex crimes if they are racist? Somehow, I am not buying this argument.
 
A state appeals court and a federal judge have already held repeatedly that the 2012 commentary and short video excerpt, which joined an existing conversation and explored the public’s fascination with celebrity sex tapes, were newsworthy. We have had our day in trial court, and we lost. We will have our day back in appeals court, and we will be vindicated.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something, but both the opinions he cites are in regard to preliminary injunctions, which I assume this trial was not.
 
Man oh man do I ever wish this was anyone but fucking racist Hogan
KuGsj.gif


Its the only thing that dampens my absolute joy that this jackass company is going down in flames.
 
Is there anything to suggest they couldn't just use quotes or masked audio for the racism? I mean that's what British tabloids do and they also check with their lawyers first.
 
Celebrities, especially ones as public about their personal and sex life as Hulk Hogan, have a narrower zone of privacy than ordinary people.
Click to expand...

WTF?

These Gawker people are delusional assholes.

The sex tape was STOLEN. Hogan wasn't being all public about his sex tape. The whole reason he's suing is because his property was stolen, then they tried to extort him for money, when that fell apart, they illegally sold it to Gawker and then his privacy was invaded when they made it public and the contents of the tape defamed his ability to make a living as he once did.

Trying to make this Hogan's fault or to devalue his rights as a private citizen because he's a celebrity is bullshit.

I don't even like Hogan, but I have to side with him on this. Gawker are criminals.
 
This is so idiotic. It's undeniable that what they did destroyed this dude's career. There are obvious financial repercussions, the guy lost his livelyhood. And their defense is that celebrities don't deserve privacy?

And I say this as someone who doesn't watch wrestling nor do I have any particular love for Hulk Hogan (actually, he's a terrible person).
 
Trident said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but both the opinions he cites are in regard to preliminary injunctions, which I assume this trial was not.
Click to expand...

The existence and substance of the tape are newsworthy. Whether actually showing Hulk fucking a chick on a secretly recorded tape was newsworthy is the issue.
 
Angry Grimace said:
For what its worth, I would be not surprised at all to find that the verdict gets reduced by a lot.

I don't think the verdict will be overturned. Gawker's argument is that Bubba the Love Sponge's testimony (either in-court or his FBI testimony) would have changed something, but their actual argument is bad: Bubba said that Hulk knew about the sex tape when he talked to the FBI, but Bubba was under investigation for blackmail at the time (so he had an incentive to lie) and he testified that Hulk didn't know about the tape during the processing of the Gawker trial.

The problem with Gawker's argument is that even if Bubba's hearsay statement (this is relevant because hearsay is typically not admissible) was admitted, even giving Gawker the benefit of the doubt about Bubba's credibility (he has none, as he testified two different things) it isn't a "smoking gun" to establish Hulk knew about the tape.
Click to expand...
It's not hearsay. It's a party admission.
 
Angry Grimace said:
For what its worth, I would be not surprised at all to find that the verdict gets reduced by a lot.

I don't think the verdict will be overturned. Gawker's argument is that Bubba the Love Sponge's testimony (either in-court or his FBI testimony) would have changed something, but their actual argument is bad: Bubba said that Hulk knew about the sex tape when he talked to the FBI, but Bubba was under investigation for blackmail at the time (so he had an incentive to lie) and he testified that Hulk didn't know about the tape during the processing of the Gawker trial.

The problem with Gawker's argument is that even if Bubba's hearsay statement (this is relevant because hearsay is typically not admissible) was admitted, even giving Gawker the benefit of the doubt about Bubba's credibility (he has none, as he testified two different things) it isn't a "smoking gun" to establish Hulk knew about the tape.
Click to expand...

I'm still confused about why Hulk knowing about the tape or that he was being filmed is even relevant. If he did know he was being filmed and consented to being filmed that doesn't mean he consents to it being put online and shared. It's the whole thing with "revenge porn" where shitty ex-boyfriends put sex tapes and nudes of their exes up online after they get dumped. The ex agreed at the time or gave the photos but that doesn't mean they are ok with them getting put online and that stuff is still illegal right?
 
GORILLA: LOOK AT THAT BRAIN, HE HIT THE LEG DROP.
HEENAN: He's a cheat Monsoon, a coward. Gawker did nothing wrong.

Hogan+4.gif


GORILLA: GAWKER KICKED OUT I CAN'T BELIEVE IT.
HEENAN: YES... YES... TAKE THAT HOGAN. CHOKE ON THAT.
GORILLA: WILL YOU STOP!
 
Angry Grimace said:
For what its worth, I would be not surprised at all to find that the verdict gets reduced by a lot.

I don't think the verdict will be overturned. Gawker's argument is that Bubba the Love Sponge's testimony (either in-court or his FBI testimony) would have changed something, but their actual argument is bad: Bubba said that Hulk knew about the sex tape when he talked to the FBI, but Bubba was under investigation for blackmail at the time (so he had an incentive to lie) and he testified that Hulk didn't know about the tape during the processing of the Gawker trial.

The problem with Gawker's argument is that even if Bubba's hearsay statement (this is relevant because hearsay is typically not admissible) was admitted, even giving Gawker the benefit of the doubt about Bubba's credibility (he has none, as he testified two different things) it isn't a "smoking gun" to establish Hulk knew about the tape.
Click to expand...

I think it will get reduced, but this op-ed is definitely a bad idea with regards to the punitives, in my opinion. He's giving a court a good reason to uphold them or keep them high by being defiant.
 
short video excerpt, which joined an existing conversation and explored the public’s fascination with celebrity sex tapes, were newsworthy
Click to expand...
Gross.

I had suspicions, but it is now clear that Hogan’s lawsuit was a calculated attempt to prevent Gawker, or anyone else who might obtain evidence of his racism, from publishing a truth more interesting and more damaging than a revelation about his sex life.
Click to expand...
Why did it take a lawsuit for this information to get out there then? Doesn't seem like Gawker had any interest in reporting how much of an awful human being Hogan was, they just wanted to show a wrinkly dick because they knew that would get far more clicks.

Celebrities, especially ones as public about their personal and sex life as Hulk Hogan, have a narrower zone of privacy than ordinary people.
Click to expand...
Super gross.

Fuck off and die Gawker.
 
When popular celebrities have their private videos and pictures leaked, Gawker rightfully stands behind them and decries it as disgusting. Great job!

When an unpopular celebrity has private video leaked, Gawker uploads it, defends it ("Its funny / Hes a racist/he signed up for it).

There should be no grey area. Its gross. They deserved to get skewered in court.
 
Kathian said:
Is there anything to suggest they couldn't just use quotes or masked audio for the racism? I mean that's what British tabloids do and they also check with their lawyers first.
Click to expand...

Gawker somehow manages to be worse than British tabloids. Once upon a time I didn't think there could possibly be anything worse than British tabloids, yet here we are.
 
Bartholomew said:
From a legal standpoint...should this guy be publishing anything about the case? Presumably Gawker don't want to jeopardize an appeal.

What do Gawker have to gain from giving an op-ed when the dust has yet to settle? I mean they're already in the shit for having loose lips.
Click to expand...

Well I mean doesn't this entire issue stem from Gawker not being able to keep their mouth shut?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Digg.com Relaunching with Reddit Co-Founder and Kevin Rose
44
2K
0neAnd0nly replied
Nick Frost has been cast as Hagrid in the HBO 'HARRY POTTER' tv series
43
2K
jason10mm replied
Streamer Destiny has denied allegations asserting that the man he's having sex with on recently surfaced sex tape is Nick Fuentes
Cringe 
42
31K
Roxkis_ii replied
Long Legs - New Nick Cage FBI thriller/horror
11
1K
near replied
Hey Anime-GAF, what are some good recent anime OSTs (Not OP-ED)
0
788
Fbh replied
Top Bottom