Hulk Hogan v. Gawker jury selection was pure fuckery.

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Makonero

Member
oneofthose said:
kotaku is terrible they can all go down with them.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree. I think Shreier is one of the few actual games journalists out there and I'd prefer him to still have a job when this is over. Maybe with another publication, but that's never guaranteed.
 
ultrazilla

ultrazilla

Gold Member
Need to get this case wrapped quick with Hogan's victory to squeeze him into
Wrestlemania. He was set up and made some bad choices but doesn't deserve to
be banned by the WWE. GAWKER deserves to lose. Hope it will take down their
whole business.
 
B

Barack Lesnar

Banned
For those that didn't watch it here's a minute by minute of yesterday's proceedings: http://www.sescoops.com/live-blog-h...fying-in-trial-of-his-lawsuit-against-gawker/

Goes into more detail than the tweets. This part killed me:

11:33 a.m. ET Never sought medical or psychiatric treatment for his emotional distress. Now hashing out pro wrestling being worked as far as how “predetermined” is more accurate than “fake” due to the physicality. Oh my God, it looks like they’re getting him to talk about how he wasn’t sure if Andre the Giant would let him win…and now he’s asking what a “work” is. This is going to be something. “It’s like dancing with someone.”

11:35 a.m. ET “When a work goes well, it goes quite smoothly, right?” Can two good workers working together look quite real? Yes. Can the term “work” be used outside the wrestling world? Yes, however you want. Oh boy, you can see where this is going.
Click to expand...
 
T

TomWaitsForNoMan

Banned
The people responsible for publishing this story, along with other disgusting perversions of journalism that Gawker has run, deserve to be punished. Sadly they're likely to just walk into another lucrative publishing gig after the heat dies down.

It's a real shame, and a damning indictment of our society, that those who will suffer the most from Gawker's death will be innocent journalists who write worthwhile stories, while the main beneficiary will be a racist conartist

ultrazilla said:
Need to get this case wrapped quick with Hogan's victory to squeeze him into
Wrestlemania. He was set up and made some bad choices but doesn't deserve to
be banned by the WWE. GAWKER deserves to lose. Hope it will take down their
whole business.
Click to expand...

In the unfortunate event of this post being serious, it's kind of funny you think being a racist is merely a "bad choice". Or perhaps you mean the bad choice was expressing it out loud and getting caught rather than keeping it bottled up or using codewords like sophisticated racists do
 
P

Patryn

Member
So after reading a NYTimes article, apparently all those choice quotes from Daulerio are from a taped deposition that was taken last year.

I guess the plantiffs chose to use the tape in order to prevent cross examination by the defense, although the defense does have him, along with others who have also had their taped depositions used, listed as witnesses when it's their turn.

Gawker also apparently released a statement saying that Daulerio was being sarcastic when he gave that answer about four year olds. Which, fine, but dude's an idiot for giving an answer like that in serious court proceedings.
 
F

FloydtheFathead

Member
Patryn said:
So after reading a NYTimes article, apparently all those choice quotes from Daulerio are from a taped deposition that was taken last year.

I guess the plantiffs chose to use the tape in order to prevent cross examination by the defense, although the defense does have him, along with others who have also had their taped depositions used, listed as witnesses when it's their turn.

Gawker also apparently released a statement saying that Daulerio was being sarcastic when he gave that answer about four year olds. Which, fine, but dude's an idiot for giving an answer like that in serious court proceedings.
Click to expand...
Smart on their part. There's no cleaning up that stupidity on Gawker's part.
 
T

The Llama

Member
Patryn said:
So after reading a NYTimes article, apparently all those choice quotes from Daulerio are from a taped deposition that was taken last year.

I guess the plantiffs chose to use the tape in order to prevent cross examination by the defense, although the defense does have him, along with others who have also had their taped depositions used, listed as witnesses when it's their turn.

Gawker also apparently released a statement saying that Daulerio was being sarcastic when he gave that answer about four year olds. Which, fine, but dude's an idiot for giving an answer like that in serious court proceedings.
Click to expand...
Smart move by the plaintiffs. After hearing that, the jury will find it very hard to believe the defense.
 
M

Makonero

Member
All this talk about journalistic ethics is kind of unnecessary. What's being debated is not Gawker's ethics, it's whether publishing an excerpt of a celebrity sex tape is legal.
 
S

stump sock

Member
Makonero said:
All this talk about journalistic ethics is kind of unnecessary. What's being debated is not Gawker's ethics, it's whether publishing an excerpt of a celebrity sex tape is legal.
Click to expand...

well they're also trying to say that publishing it was fine because it didn't violate the first amendment so clearly they're aiming wide
 
M

Makonero

Member
stump sock said:
well they're also trying to say that publishing it was fine because it didn't violate the first amendment so clearly they're aiming wide
Click to expand...

Right, I mean, that's the defense they've always had. "It was newsworthy, freedom of the press." I keep going back and forth on this. Both sides are pretty disgusting.
 
S

stump sock

Member
Makonero said:
Right, I mean, that's the defense they've always had. "It was newsworthy, freedom of the press." I keep going back and forth on this. Both sides are pretty disgusting.
Click to expand...

ethics will come into play under that umbrella to some extent though. at least if their defense is that it's "newsworthy." does freedom of the press grant them the right to publish it? well, maybe, insofar as it doesn't then conflict with any other laws (remember this is a invasion of privacy suit). they're not on trial for publishing it as much as for the (alleged) fallout that doing so caused. since ethics and laws don't neatly align, proof that they acted unethically could actually be damning w/r/t the main charge in this case.

it also doesn't help that they're basically admitting that publishing it didn't go through any kind of internal review, so since they can't actually defend a semblance of journalistic integrity, they're aiming for broad legal protection.

e: Foley is currently saying that the fact that a tape exists could be considered newsworthy, the contents of said tape probably less so. I can see some merit to that viewpoint.
 
M

Makonero

Member
stump sock said:
ethics will come into play under that umbrella to some extent though. at least if their defense is that it's "newsworthy." does freedom of the press grant them the right to publish it? well, maybe, insofar as it doesn't then conflict with any other laws (remember this is a invasion of privacy suit). they're not on trial for publishing it as much as for the (alleged) fallout that doing so caused. since ethics and laws don't neatly align, proof that they acted unethically could actually be damning w/r/t the main charge in this case.

it also doesn't help that they're basically admitting that publishing it didn't go through any kind of internal review, so since they can't actually defend a semblance of journalistic integrity, they're aiming for broad legal protection.

e: Foley is currently saying that the fact that a tape exists could be considered newsworthy, the contents of said tape probably less so. I can see some merit to that viewpoint.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with this. I do think it's an important distinction that Gawker didn't post the whole 30 minute video, but just a 1.5 minute excerpt. But that still is too much and unnecessary, and they should have taken it down when asked.
 
L

liquidtmd

Banned
Makonero said:
Trump/Hogan (Bollea) 2016

You just called it, it now will happen.
Click to expand...

White_House_06.02.08.0.jpg
 
S

Shanlei91

Sonic handles my blue balls
Ric Flair said:
Hahahahaha, hogan wins the court case and points to the seemingly out-of-place wrestlemania flag hanging from the court room rafters. "Roman Reigns, you're next brother!"
Click to expand...

I can't read this thread for more than 30 seconds without going into a fit of laughter.
 
M

Makonero

Member
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Do you watch / Have you returned to watching pro wrestling recently?
2
50
4K
violence replied
Life Is Strange: Double Exposure Sales Were A "Large Loss" For Square Enix, Sequel Unlikely
News Sales-Age 2
59
3K
me0wish replied
So Long Redbox
19
1K
Bridges replied
WWE 2K24 - Reviews Thread
7
3K
adamsapple replied
[VGC] Keighley weighs in on debate over Dave the Diver qualifying for Best Indie Game
Opinion News 2
86
7K
calistan replied
Top Bottom