• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Jury awards $25M more to Hulk Hogan

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MegaManTrigger

Banned
Candescence said:
As neat as it is for Gawker to get their just deserts despite Hogan being a racist jackass, this ruling does raise some serious and rather uncomfortable first amendment issues. You can't just draw an arbitrary line in the sand at unconsensual sex tapes, the First Amendment doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

Why is this even an issue? You simply do not release something that people have not consented to. Otherwise, you're opening up a very dangerous precedence where people can release sensitive information simply because they have the freedom of expression to do so. Furthermore, the facile argument that a public persona's sex life is newsworthy because of the fact that they are a public persona is reductive, circular and illogical.
 
P

Pork

Banned
Corronchilejano said:
Now I wonder why Gawker decided to make their stand on such an inane subject.
Click to expand...

For MAXIMUM EDGE of course.

"A Judge Told Us to Take Down Our Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Post. We Won't."

HARDCORE TO THE MAX.

Combine this with their blatant hypocrisy when it came to the "fappening" leaks along with the leaks they themselves perpetrated, such as with Scarlett Johansson in addition to this one, and I have zero sympathy for Gawker (its employees who are being caught in the middle aside). Seriously.
 
-COOLIO-

-COOLIO-

The Everyman
mil6es said:
Everyone says fuck Gawker, I say fuck Hulk Hogan the racist peice of shit. Seems this shit is easily forgiven these days
Click to expand...

to put it another way, if i had to choose between someone calling me a nigger in private (and apologizing for the comments later) and someone posting a sex tape of me online i would enjoy neither but prefer the former. in my opinion, hogan is the lesser of two evils by a substantial margin in this situation. hogan deserves to be called a racist asshole but gawker deserves to be called a heartless, malicious, life-ruining monster.
 
A

Akuun

Looking for meaning in GAF
I don't know much about Hogan but Gawker has a track record for doing really fucking scummy shit, so fuck them. And the 4 year old remark said in court just shows just what kind of people they think they are.

It sucks for the innocent people who work under Gawker to possibly lose their jobs, though. There are some good people working in that network that probably have nothing to do with this. Maybe they can come together and make a new news outlet that isn't run by jackasses.

Corronchilejano said:
Now I wonder why Gawker decided to make their stand on such an inane subject.
Click to expand...
Cause they're a bunch of obnoxious assholes and thought they could get away with it.
 
-COOLIO-

-COOLIO-

The Everyman
Candescence said:
As neat as it is for Gawker to get their just deserts despite Hogan being a racist jackass, this ruling does raise some serious and rather uncomfortable first amendment issues. You can't just draw an arbitrary line in the sand at unconsensual sex tapes, the First Amendment doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

there's a lot of things you can't legally post or say without retribution in the form of financial penalty or jail time.

copyrighted material.
things you signed an NDA not to disclose.
death threats.
remarks that could be construed as sexual harassment.
provoking/encouraging suicide or violent actions.

i'm totally fine with sex tapes being grouped with this stuff.
 
P

Pork

Banned
Candescence said:
As neat as it is for Gawker to get their just deserts despite Hogan being a racist jackass, this ruling does raise some serious and rather uncomfortable first amendment issues. You can't just draw an arbitrary line in the sand at unconsensual sex tapes, the First Amendment doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

So what's your opinion on revenge porn then? Also, it doesn't hardly seem arbitrary to me. Private setting + lack of consent to release = illegal to release. Pretty straightforward IMO.

-COOLIO- said:
to put it another way, if i had to choose between someone calling me a nigger and someone posting a sex tape of me online i would enjoy neither but prefer the former.
Click to expand...

Thank you, this. Also, one is horribly offensive but legal, the other is also horribly offensive but straight up ILLEGAL and a violation of one's rights. Not to mention "two wrongs don't make a right." Gawker isn't excused or justified in what they did just because Hulk Hogan is a piece of shit.
 
L

liquidtmd

Banned
AlimNassor said:
Gawker isn't dead. It's not gunna look pretty to their shareholders but, they arent' dead.
Click to expand...

I read this in Hudson's voice

35d6119f314d497ef3dc0c444ea6250c.jpg


Then we go back in and get 'em

YOU CANT HELP THEM!!!!!
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
Sniffynose said:
Not really his fault his son is an asshole. This is also a good fuck you to the vulture media.

Sadly some good people might lose their jobs but the pricks behind these businesses deserve to eat shit since they got rich screwing over people. (although every corporation does this anyways)
Click to expand...

He supplied alcohol to his son constantly, starting when he was underage. Hulk also made a statement that his son's friend "should have worn a seat belt" trying to blame the dude himself for getting half his skull blanked, when the reason he was injured was from the speakers in Nick's car slamming into his head through the seat, not being thrown into the dash or from the car, something a seatbelt wouldn't have protected him from.

Hulk can get fucked just along with everyone else
 
T

Trident

Loaded With Aspartame
A state appeals court and a federal judge have already held repeatedly that the 2012 commentary and short video excerpt, which joined an existing conversation and explored the public’s fascination with celebrity sex tapes, were newsworthy.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something, but both those opinions that Denton cites are in regard to a preliminary injunction.
 
N

Not

Banned
Wow so this means Gawker is finally bye bye?

Wish it actually came about by somebody decent, but you take what you can get I guess
 
A

Aureon

Please do not let me serve on a jury. I am actually a crazy person.
Patryn said:
Gawker's argument is that it was not an unwilling sex tape, that Hogan knew he was being filmed, and that they were not able to present that evidence in court.

If you read more about the case, Gawker actually has reason to be confident on its chances on appeal, as nearly every time they've gone to the appellate court related to this case they've won.

Their game plan going in always accounted for them losing this first trial, and later prevailing on appeal. The major problem was that they expected that the judgement would be a much lower amount instead of this crushing figure.

The tricky thing is whether they can afford the costs of an appeal. They're likely hoping they'll get the requirement for a bond for the $50 million waived.
Click to expand...

Unwilling in the sense of not being meant for public viewing. Whatever Hogan knew he was being filmed or not doesn't really matter, publishing non-newsworthy private information about private citizens is absurd in and out of itself.
 
P

Patryn

Member
Aureon said:
Unwilling in the sense of not being meant for public viewing. Whatever Hogan knew he was being filmed or not doesn't really matter, publishing non-newsworthy private information about private citizens is absurd in and out of itself.
Click to expand...
I wasn't arguing for Gawker there, merely stating their viewpoint. I feel that they deserved to lose, but the penalty should have been much lower, like around $10 million or so.

The strange thing is the racist stuff really was newsworthy but they didn't include any of that in the original post. There really wasn't public benefit in the sex portion of the tape, and I fully believe that they published it solely because AJ Daulerio thought it was funny.
 
C

CLEEK

Member
Candescence said:
As neat as it is for Gawker to get their just deserts despite Hogan being a racist jackass, this ruling does raise some serious and rather uncomfortable first amendment issues. You can't just draw an arbitrary line in the sand at unconsensual sex tapes, the First Amendment doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

There are tons exceptions to first amendment rights.

This is just another that is added to the list. You can draw lines in the sand, and no, they're not unconstitutional. I think you don't understand how your legislative and judicial system works.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Johnny Depp wins US libel lawsuit against former wife Amber Heard
News 2 3 4 5
231
22K
DeafTourette replied
The Britney Spears meltdown and conservatorship saga.
2
87
9K
Syphon Filter replied
  • Locked
Jury sides with Hulk Hogan in his sex tape lawsuit against Gawker & awards him $115m
28 29 30 31 32
2K
248K
SlipperyFishes replied
Netflix documentary considers the dangerous ramifications of Bollea v. Gawker for the
2 3 4 5
228
29K
keenerz replied
  • Locked
The Gawker saga is over: Settled with Hulk Hogan and other litigants for $32 Million
2
79
9K
Producer replied
Top Bottom