Support NeoGAF

[King Tubby]

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.

Why not just stick a camera in his bathroom and film him taking a shit. His whole life is a performance!

 

[LoveCake]

This isn't new information. It's what he said in the op-ed I posted originally.

And he's still a scumbag.

Yes, but why was this not said or allowed in open court, if Hulk knew he was being filmed was the suit about the sex act or stopping the the racist comment being published?

Posting the sex tape was wrong I agree, but could the racist comment been have published without the tape, what would the context of the tape have been?

As I have said previously, I am not keen on either Gawker or Hulk.

 

[Tripon]

Yes, but why was this not said or allowed in open court, if Hulk knew he was being filmed was the suit about the sex act or stopping the the racist comment being published?

Posting the sex tape was wrong I agree, but could the racist comment been have published without the tape, what would the context of the tape have been?

As I have said previously, I am not keen on either Gawker or Hulk.

Because it's fucking hearsay?

 

[Toxi]

I'm not sure how on Earth Denton thought this would make them look better.

Stay the fuck out of people's private life Gawker.

 

[ThreePiMatt]

There are probably very few people on this planet more keenly aware of his on-camera versus off-camera personality than Hulk Hogan. The idea that Hulk knew he was being filmed by a camera that was in plain view, and still acted like a racist scumbag seems wholly unbelievable.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Interesting read, Unsealed evidence proves Hulk Hogan's lawsuit was a sham





Why wasn't this evidence shown in open court?

One, because Bubba's statement is hearsay; two, because two Bubba's statement is contradictory, and three, Bubba's statement was made in the course of an investigation into Bubba blackmailing Hogan so he has a specific incentive to lie; and last, Bubba saying Hulk knew about the tape doesn't prove Hulk knew about the tape.

Re: Hearsay - you can't admit an out of court statement to prove the truth of the thing being stated.

 

[LoveCake]

One, because Bubba's statement is hearsay; two, because two Bubba's statement is contradictory, and three, Bubba's statement was made in the course of an investigation into Bubba blackmailing Hogan so he has a specific incentive to lie; and last, Bubba saying Hulk knew about the tape doesn't prove Hulk knew about the tape.

Re: Hearsay - you can't admit an out of court statement to prove the truth of the thing being stated.

Ok, I didn't know that, hence me asking the question.

 

[Kinyou]

What exactly would even change if Hogan knew that he was filmed? That still doesn't give Gawker the right to publish that stuff.

 

[ApharmdX]

Now read this other gawker article:
http://jezebel.com/behind-every-bullied-woman-is-a-man-yelling-about-free-1629502544

Yeah, this doesn't reconcile with:

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.

Not at all. Yes, Hogan is a scumbag, but he's also a victim here, the same as J-law or any of the other women who were exposed in the iCloud picture leak.

Gawker manages to be even worse than Hogan. They should not exist any longer, and it looks like they likely won't, now.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

Are you sure? Everything I'm finding shows that both sites originated inside the Gawker empire from the start.

EDIT: Yeah, that's totally incorrect:

I was under the impression Gizmodo was started by Peter Rojas and Lifehacker was by Gina Trapani, then sold to Gawker. Unless they were built independently on Gawkers platform.

 

[Patryn]

I was under the impression Gizmodo was started by Peter Rojas and Lifehacker was by Gina Trapani, then sold to Gawker. Unless they were built independently on Gawkers platform.

They were the original EIC of each site, but Gawker funded and started both sites. Both were drawing Gawker paychecks.

It's similar to how Will Leitch started Deadspin and Anna Holmes started Jezebel. All the sites have always been 100 percent owned by Gawker. Think Grantland and Bill Simmons.

 

[cntr]

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.

They took it down in the sense that they stopped hosting it on their site. They replaced it with a link to the video on an external site.

 

[King_Moc]

Wow, his argument is literally 'we should be able to show famous people having sex because they are famous'. What an absolute tool.

 

[Funyarinpa]

One scumbag ends another scumbag.

Almost beautiful.

 

[spookyfish]

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.

Gawker gonna Gawker.

 

[illiniguy05]

One, because Bubba's statement is hearsay; two, because two Bubba's statement is contradictory, and three, Bubba's statement was made in the course of an investigation into Bubba blackmailing Hogan so he has a specific incentive to lie; and last, Bubba saying Hulk knew about the tape doesn't prove Hulk knew about the tape.

Re: Hearsay - you can't admit an out of court statement to prove the truth of the thing being stated.

The legal discourse in gaf threads is always poor.

In a FL court, the statement would qualify as a party admission, a hearsay exception. See Florida rules of evidence 90.803(18)(a). Many jurisdictions don't even consider party admissions as hearsay.

A judge would of course consider the facts surrounding the admission and could exclude the evidence based on relevance or prejudicial grounds, among others. Nevertheless, Hulkster's statements to third parties could all be admitted as an admission by party opponent.

 

[NervousXtian]

So this Gawker dude probably thought the Erin Andrews video was OK as well?

Fuck right fuck off man. Some things don't need to be public, what happens in home should stay there. The way we treat celebrity is ridiculous in this country. Being famous doesn't mean you give up all your privacy.

Then again, Gawker is going down unless they win appeal. So why not double-down? That's got to be the thinking.