Support NeoGAF

[Angry Grimace]

why is the hulkster suing a decade later? Did the tape just leak? Because i remember hearing about a tape a long ass time ago

He's hulking up.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

They put a sex tape of him on their website without his consent. What else is there?

Moreover, they apparently refused a court order to take it down. Personal bias against Gawker or not, they clearly fucked up there.

 

[RC]

He's hulking up.

So you watched the video?

 

[jmdajr]

Article I read says Gawker is probbaly fucked. Bringing that leg drop down hard!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

My first reaction is to be on Hulks side. Sex tape leaks are always pretty gross

Gawkers case is pretty compelling to me, the news media needs a wide latitude to cover "news worthy" events. On a personal level I don't think this is but I much rather give them latitude than have the government or a jury say if something is news worthy or a "private matter"

 

[Rival]

I wonder what they're gonna do?

First post for the win! Hilarious.

 

[FO-totality]

Good. Hopefully this bankrupts that shithole.

Amen, Brother

 

[Derekloffin]

Saw this flying around.



The court ordered them to take it down and they didn't, so it's their own fault. Hypocrites taken down would be nice.

Wow, were they really that stupid?! Well, yeah, HULK SMASH STUPID COMPANY! Wait, wrong hulk... eh, whatever.

 

[Kinyou]

Didn't gawker defend themselves by claiming freedom of speech? Sure wouldn't mind see them burning down over this.

 

[Rafa=FedKilla]

"You two do your thing."

 

[riotous]

"We Won't"

Uh, you will now I imagine lol.

 

[excelsiorlef]

It'll be sad that this takes down io9 and Observation Deck. Gawker prime is nasty

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Good luck HH, you're doing god's work

 

[iNvid02]

bleed em dry hulk bleed em dry

 

[GDGF]

I'm tired and my eyes are crossing the threads. I read the title as Hulk Hogan exposed as white woman in blackface.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

I wonder what they're gonna do?

outstanding

 

[ZealousD]

Gawkers case is pretty compelling to me, the news media needs a wide latitude to cover "news worthy" events. On a personal level I don't think this is but I much rather give them latitude than have the government or a jury say if something is news worthy or a "private matter"

Hulk Hogan having sex is news worthy?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

They put a sex tape of him on their website without his consent. What else is there?

They're a media outlet. Can we ban people from leaking private documents and files to the media then publishing them, because they're "private" and done without consent?

 

[Shanlei91]

I'm tired and my eyes are crossing the threads. I read the title as Hulk Hogan exposed as white woman in blackface.

 

[DoktorEvil]

So Gawker didn't take them down AFTER a court order?

YOOOOOOOOO Hogan's going in on this Yapapi Strap match.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

Saw this flying around.



The court ordered them to take it down and they didn't, so it's their own fault. Hypocrites taken down would be nice.

Not trying to defend the Gawker network, but those are two different sites with completely different editorial directions. It's not uncommon to have this happening in content networks (BuzzFeed, Aol, Gawker, etc). It was also 2-years apart and a lot can happen in two years with regards to top-down leadership and direction. This doesn't excuse Gawker Media from not pulling down the video, just offering a counter point.

 

[drt]

I hope Hulk Hogan wins.

 

[Enter the Dragon Punch]

oh no

gawker could be gone for good after this?

ohhhh noooo

 

[Archaix]

I haven't felt a desire this strong to cheer for Hulk Hogan since 1988.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Hulk Hogan having sex is news worthy?

Did you read my quote?

I said I think it isn't (but I don't think most celebrity news is but courts disagree) but I'd rather give media the latitude than have courts deem what is and isn't.

Gawker's argument is they were representing the divergence of his image and reality. I think that's valid enough. They weren't selling it for profit and for revenge.

 

[Hindl]

They're a media outlet. Can we ban people from leaking private documents and files to the media then publishing them, because they're "private" and done without consent?

They had a court order to take it down, and they refused. Open and shut to me.

 

[True Savior]

So many great sex videos all over the web and people go watch Hulk Hogan ?

 

[Sephzilla]

I wonder what they're gonna do?

 

[2 Slice Toaster]

Yes go Hulk Hogan! I'm incredibly indignant about you being embarrassed by a sex tape showing you cheating on your wife with another guys wife, but oh, he gave you permission, so there's probably no way you had any idea the tape would get released because you haven't shown yourself willing to stoop to incredibly cynical levels to make a buck.

and stop touching your daughter so much

 

[wildfire]

It'll be sad that this takes down io9 and Observation Deck. Gawker prime is nasty

Fuck I forgot io9 is part of Gawker. I will follow wherever the crew moves onto.

 

[ZealousD]

Did you read my quote?

I said I think it isn't (but I don't think most celebrity news is but courts disagree) but I'd rather give media the latitude than have courts deem what is and isn't.

Gawker's argument is they were representing the divergence of his image and reality. I think that's valid enough. They weren't selling it for profit and for revenge.

So do you think a media outlet should be able to publish anything at all? If they had your sex tape, you think you'd just be pissed and leave it at that?

 

[Shanlei91]

It'll be sad that this takes down io9 and Observation Deck. Gawker prime is nasty

And lifehacker! Who will teach me how to open a bottle of beer when all I have is construction paper?!

 

[Morrigan Stark]

They're a media outlet. Can we ban people from leaking private documents and files to the media then publishing them, because they're "private" and done without consent?

Seriously? It's a sex tape, not a newsworthy, public-interest-worthy exposition of corruption or something.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

Good fuck gawker

 

[riotous]

I feel like I've read some actually interesting things on Deadspin.

Granted to be perfectly honest a lot of it was rather gossipy; like the Manti Te'o stuff or other "Shocking celebrity" stories.

 

[werks]

Gawkers case is pretty compelling to me, the news media needs a wide latitude to cover "news worthy" events. On a personal level I don't think this is but I much rather give them latitude than have the government or a jury say if something is news worthy or a "private matter"

Lol. Reporting on it is newsworthy, posting sex tapes have nothing to do with news. Can gawker post the latest game of thrones episode on their website as news? Then why can they post a sex tape that was obviously recorded without his consent.

 

[Anoregon]

I always wonder who that Persian Joe Rogan is in that gif.

 

[entremet]

Good fuck gawker

.

 

[1044]

Good fuck gawker

.

 

[Erevador]

Saw this flying around.

It is a valid point. It makes me think of that time that Huffington Post was criticizing "sexist headlines about female celebrities" that were exactly the kind of headlines you could reliably find on Huffington Post any day of the week.

Gawker reminds me of the Chris Rock joke about people who break into your house, steal your TV, and come by the next day, all sympathy, to say "I heard you got robbed!"

 

[2 Slice Toaster]

Lol. Reporting on it is newsworthy, posting sex tapes have nothing to do with news. Can gawker post the latest game of thrones episode on their website as news? Then why can they post a sex tape that was obviously recorded without his consent.

Why is it obvious he was recorded without his consent?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The court ordered them to take it down and they didn't, so it's their own fault. Hypocrites taken down would be nice.

They took down the video. They wouldn't take down the text.
From their post.

A lawful order from a circuit court judge is a serious thing. While we vehemently disagree with Campbell's order with respect to the video itself, we have chosen to take it down pending our appeal.

But the portion of the order compelling us to remove the entirety of Daulerio's post—his words, his speech—is grossly unconstitutional. We won't take it down.

And from the history of the case which shows that Hogan is only going to courts that see thing his way and has ignored rulings contrary to his desires. He added gawker onto another case when he lost his injunction in his federal case.

The history of the case is convoluted, to say the least. Hogan initially sued Gawker in federal court, but after a federal judge denied his motion for a preliminary injunction (which would have forced Gawker to immediately take down the post while the case was argued in the courts), he dropped the federal case. In December 2012, he added Gawker as a defendant in the state court case that he had already filed against Heather Clem and Bubba Clem. Gawker argued that Hogan was court-shopping and tried to remove the case back to federal court, but a federal judge remanded it back to the state court in March 2013.

In April 2013, a state judge—Judge Pamela Campbell—granted Hogan’s motion for a preliminary injunction, forcing Gawker to take down both the video and Daulerio’s commentary. Gawker took down the video, but not the commentary, and wrote a post about the ruling. Gawker also appealed the injunction order and a state appeals court reversed the injunction in January 2014 on First Amendment grounds. Gawker then filed a motion to dismiss the case, which was denied, and a motion for summary judgment, which was also denied. Since those motions were denied, the case is set to be argued before a jury in state court later this summer.

So do you think a media outlet should be able to publish anything at all? If they had your sex tape, you think you'd just be pissed and leave it at that?

I think there is a vast difference between my sex tape and hogan's. I don't think a media outlet should be able to publish anything but I think the first amendment means we should give them wide latitude

 

[dave is ok]

It sucks because Gawker is going to have to layoff some people who probably don't deserve it or have anything to do with this article, but this is what happens when you double down on stupid.

 

[werks]

Did you read my quote?

I said I think it isn't (but I don't think most celebrity news is but courts disagree) but I'd rather give media the latitude than have courts deem what is and isn't.

Gawker's argument is they were representing the divergence of his image and reality. I think that's valid enough. They weren't selling it for profit and for revenge.

Lol, they posted it for the hits, which is profit.

 

[Netherscourge]

Anyway, Hogan is definitely FACE in this storyline.

I hope Gawker goes down for the 3 count.

You don't mess with a real American who fights for the rights of every man!

 

[Velcro Fly]

I remember a little bit of outrage about how they handled the Hulk Hogan tape and those pics definitely tell the story.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Lol, they posted it for the hits, which is profit.

So only non-profit outlets should be allowed to be protected?

 

[Angry Grimace]

So you watched the video?

For the love of all that is holy no.

I can think of about 9383250 other people whose sex tapes I would watch before the Hulksters.

 

[Silver Arrows]

Why would we want to save Kotaku? Let that shit burn

Agreed. Just because some writers are darlings of GAF doesn't mean the rest of the network is shit.

 

[Delta Assault]

You'd think Brooke Hogan would be enough for guys who love and worship Hulk Hogan but also want to stay hetero and macho.