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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

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.
 
Give it up Nick.
OfRiesx.jpg


Amazing that he won't just take the L and admit Gawker screwed up. What a complete and total bootstain.
 
I thought Gawker learned not to poke the bee hive last time when the judge ordered them to take down the sex tape and they refused and posted a long thing like this as to why.
 
Give it up Nick.
OfRiesx.jpg


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.
 
Gawker's lawyers must be shaking their heads at this op-ed, Nick Denton and Co. take narcissism to a multi-million dollar level lol
 
Celebrities, especially ones as public about their personal and sex life as Hulk Hogan, have a narrower zone of privacy than ordinary people
ZOQ6SoR.gif


What about the mess with the CFO of Conde Nast? Ugh, those people are such bunch of vile.
 
The way Gawker found this newsworthy was as a means to test Hulk Hogan's sexual boasts. Is this guy being serious?
 
Well I mean doesn't this entire issue stem from Gawker not being able to keep their mouth shut?
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Hate boner for Gawker aside, he's not wrong. The judgement was ridiculous and hopefully it'll be thrown out on appeal.
 
Hate boner for Gawker aside, he's not wrong. The judgement was ridiculous and hopefully it'll be thrown out on appeal.

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.
he's not wrong.

???
 
Gawker's lawyers must be shaking their heads at this op-ed, Nick Denton and Co. take narcissism to a multi-million dollar level lol

Gawker's lawyers are probably cheerfully cashing Nick Denton's checks and billing him for 60 hours of work a week per lawyer.
 
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.

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.

Could they increase the punitive damages?

I don't think so, but this is going to SEVERELY hurt their ability to win any sort of appeal.
 
Hate boner for Gawker aside, he's not wrong. The judgement was ridiculous and hopefully it'll be thrown out on 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
 

"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.
 
This is his version of "yeah she said no, but she wanted to have sex". It's disgusting.

Bon voyage Gawker, no place for you in today's society.
 
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.
 
Will Gawker just fuck off and die already?

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.
 
My tiny violin plays for Infotainment horseshit.

Unfortunately Kotaku is tied to them, but maybe they'll get sold off to pay for this lawsuit to a respectable parent Corp.
 
Barf. Tone it down please. How do you even respond to this absurdity.

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.
 
I thought Gawker learned not to poke the bee hive last time when the judge ordered them to take down the sex tape and they refused and posted a long thing like this as to why.

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.
 
Is there a reason Bubba can't testify to what Hogan said?

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.
 
This vitriol is misplaced. Yes, Nick Denton, those involved with the Hogan coverage, and perhaps even Gawker at 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.
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.
 
Right, Hulk is. A witness can testify about out of court statements made by a party to the case.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom