Is there a reason Bubba can't testify to what Hogan said?
Gawker Founder Nick Denton pens op-ed on Hulk Hogan verdict
- Thread starter ElectricBlanketFire
- Start date
- Status
Is there a reason Bubba can't testify to what Hogan said?
Right, but I was referring to the fact that preliminary injunctions have a much higher bar to pass for a plaintiff to be successful than an after-the-fact damages trial would.
Preliminary injunctions are considered "extraordinary relief." This is especially true in newsworthiness cases, because they're considered prior restraint.
Essentially, my point is that Gawker is misrepresenting the opinions they're citing as evidence of the law being on their side.
FO-totality
Poet Centuriate
dat paycheck
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Give it up Nick.
Amazing that he won't just take the L and admit Gawker screwed up. What a complete and total bootstain.
To his defense, he can't. Because if he does it's over for his career and the careers of countless others who had nothing to do with this.
But that doesn't make him right.
This is why I throw up inside every time I see Jezebel talk about supporting "feminism". Like hell they do.
Yup. Doubling down on that whole 4 year old video thing. The guy gets thoroughly strung up by his balls in court on that comment and the other Gawker guy still thinks it's okay to be a self-righteous attention whore over it.
MisterHero
Super Member
They should write about the ONE RULE Denton(?) said about celebrities under the age of four. Then stand by it and have their employees stand by it.
FallingEdge
Member
.
The Faceless Master
Member
these pap scum are turning this racist dirtbag face again.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Sure, I guess he has to fight it in court to some extent. But he could at least shut the hell up and not write an unnecessary op-ed.
Right, Hulk is. A witness can testify about out of court statements made by a party to the case.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
huh? i don't understand
Gawker appears to have total disdain for the law.
metalslimer
Member
I'm sorry about all the jobs but gawker needs to go down
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Gawker's lawyers are probably cheerfully cashing Nick Denton's checks and billing him for 60 hours of work a week per lawyer.
Could they increase the punitive damages?
Absolutely, 100%.
The fact that this went up at all is more than enough evidence to know that the PTB at Gawker have no idea what they're doing.
I don't think so, but this is going to SEVERELY hurt their ability to win any sort of appeal.
???? Dude is using the literal excuse of "she was asking to be raped dressed like that"
And you think he's not wrong??? O_O
Bartholomuse
Member
"Umm excuuuse me your Honor I was being ironic...duh!"
Why on earth would you choose to be "flippant" in court of all places. Why didn't he just go and pen an article; "You won't believe the hot snark I dropped in court today"
If Gawker does go under I'd pay a good chunk of money to read a tell all account of what the fuck it was like to work there, because the people at the top sound like real swell dudes.
theSlacker
Member
Well if it makes you feel any better, the jury hated that guy so much that they wanted to give him community service as well.
Barf. Tone it down please. How do you even respond to this absurdity.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
shutting down his awful fucking website is a service enough to the community
djplaeskool
Member
Gawker gon' gawk.
As others have said, he should probably keep a lid on it and let the appellate process work itself out...
As others have said, he should probably keep a lid on it and let the appellate process work itself out...
Sickboy007
Member
What's even more hilarious is that they've always defended their shit-tier reporting by trotting out the old line of "speak truth to power"...and then they end up getting destroyed by a disgraced wrestler.
Pops Maellard
Member
This vitriol is misplaced. Yes, Nick Denton, those involved with the Hogan coverage, and perhaps even Gawker as a whole should and indeed must face the consequences of their actions. That said, the collateral damage is saddening at the least. There's countless talented, hardworking, ethical writers working under the Gawker umbrella who stand to lose their livelihoods because of a choice made by a select few individuals. The writers and staff at Kotaku, Gizmodo, etc, have done nothing to deserve this fate.
I have no problem with what seems to be the outcome for this case, but exuberantly awaiting the demise of these sites is, at best, odd. The impact that this will have on the employees is not something to be celebrated merely because you dislike the parent company.
He literally claimed that celebrities have less privacy rights due to being in the spotlight, though the example I provided was decidedly more extreme than privacy, it's still in the same vein.
He's made no good points and is actively trying to argue the reduction of human rights for his own profit.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
hulk hogan is an old racist and yet still manages to be a better human being than nick denton
LudicrousSpeed
Member
I'm writing this here because I'm getting a little tired of seeing this trotted out.
They did take down the sex tape.
Their post was in regards to the other part of the judge's order, which required them to take down an article that contained a description of the contents of the sex tape.
I'm not Gawker's biggest fan or anything, and parts of this defense are really repugnant, but let's get the facts correct.
cpp_is_king
Member
He doubled down on his position, the court should double down on their penalty. Fuck those losers.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Hearsay (out of court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted) are not admissible in court absent various (numerous) exceptions.
Bubba could testify to that since Hogan is a party (a party's statements aren't hearsay by definition), but he didn't because he would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights (because he could get in trouble for testifying to the opposite in Court). If Bubba testified that Hogan DIDN'T know about the tape it would be admissible, but not the other way around.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
That's the risk you run when you work for assholes.
I mean, I hate to point this out, but they willingly and knowingly chose to work for and associate with this shitstain of an organization. If they're really quality journalists, and yes some of them are, they'll land on their feet. My favorites at Kotaku like Jason and Patrick are going to be fine.
I have no moral qualms with cheering Gawker's impending demise.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
No, the statement is being made by Bubba. If we assume Bubba was repeating a statement made by Hulk (whether Hulk knew about it or not isn't a statement to begin with), it's an out-of-court statement that contains another out-of-court statement. Both of the statements need to be separately admissible. Bubba's statement to the FBI wasn't testimony and even if it was, Bubba made it clear he would invoke the 5th if called to testify (because he's under investigation for blackmail by the FBI).
Now, if Bubba told the FBI that Hulk DIDN'T know about the tape, it would be admissible, but not the other way around.
Yup.
There's always been a push and pull in journalism between privacy and the public interest. But that mostly has to do with government and corporate enterprises that would directly effect people.
What's the public interest in celebrity? None. It's fucking entertainment and gossip.
Trying to become a Gawker/Deadspin comment troll while in court. Genius move.
Seeing Gawker and Jezebel burn to the ground is the feel good story of the month. Nothing against the folks at Kotaku though. Not a regular reader but I've seen them report on some good stuff from time to time.
Thankfully I'm sure anybody who isn't a tabloid hack will likely find employment at a less soul corrupting institution.
Thankfully I'm sure anybody who isn't a tabloid hack will likely find employment at a less soul corrupting institution.
Sort of incoherent. The whole "Hulk has a different motivation than he claims!" angle isn't really persuasive. We can quibble about the number on the "emotional distress" but to claim that this whole thing did ~no~ damage is just silly. Meanwhile, the jury doesn't need to answer "does Hulk *deserve* this verdict", it needs to answer "is Hulk entitled this verdict by law, given the facts". Indeed, Denton goes on to defend himself by saying that the jury was inappropriately swayed by their emotional investment in punishing Gawker for their attitude. He also claims the article and video didn't even drive that much traffic or value to Gawker. So:
1) He wants the jury to care about Hulk's attitude / motivations in approach this case.
2) He doesn't want the jury to care about Gawker's attitude / tone in defending themselves.
1) He wants the jury to care about Hulk's attitude / motivations in approach this case.
2) He doesn't want the jury to care about Gawker's attitude / tone in defending themselves.
- Status