-
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 sides with Hulk Hogan in his sex tape lawsuit against Gawker & awards him $115m
- Thread starter MassiveNights
- Start date
- Status
A Link to the Past
Banned
Where exactly is the bad of Kotaku?
NCR Redslayer
NeoGAF's Vegeta
I think their sonic story and smash bros isnt good?
Whcih is exactly what I said? They're a good site now, with some shit in the way to pay bills. It used to be MOSTLY shit to pay bills, years ago. That's why it wasn't a good source and was banned. They turned around a lot.
I don't know anything about the legal arguments, really, but since my recollection is that both a federal judge and a federal appeals court ruled prior to the jury decision in state court that the post was both newsworthy and protected by the First Amendment, it won't surprise me if that's what ends up happening.
The damage is done either way, though, right?
Preliminary rulings on copyright and first amendment claims have little to do with final judgments on privacy rights and IIED claims.
BUNTING1243
Banned
Gawker will be remembered in history as having won for their influence on media and Theil and Hogan will be sad, vindictive men that manipulated our court system to their advantage.
I'll say it again, did the jurors / judge get paid out? If not, then your statement is vacuous.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Did Hulkamania run wild on your parents?
mercenar1e
Member
Crimson_Echidna
Banned
Fixed that there for you.
lmao
chaobreaker
Member
The clickbait stuff keeps the site floating. Otherwise we wouldn't have all the press sneak fuckery. It's a necessary evil.
SENPAIatLARGE
Banned
SMH at people making serious posts, when there are infinite wrestling gifs to use as response.
What makes you think that? The judge that made this ruling has been overturned more than any other judge in her county. One of those instances was with Gawker itself where a higher court already ruled that her injunction was unconstitutional (the one they partially ignored). And Hogan only won that injunction after losing in federal court requesting the same thing. To put it plainly, this has basically been litigated in three separate courts and 2/3rds of those ruled in Gawker's favor instead -- the only one to rule in Hogan's favor is actually the lowest of those courts.
tldr:
1.
2.
4. Gawker appeals injunction, wins appeal -- the injunction was found to be unconstitutional and another Campbell decision is overturned
5. Gawker goes back to Campbell, who ruled against them, and requests the rest of the case be dismissed. She keeps with her original ruling.
6. Gawker files a writ to the same appeals court that ruled in their favor, appeals court hints that they don't have the authority to take on the rest of the case until it's been ruled on (by Campbell) but that they probably see merit in it.
7. So the case continues in the lower state court and, unsurprisingly, Campbell again rules in favor of
8. Next step would be to appeal rest of case as they had with the injunction and it was looking like they'd win again on appeal, but Gawker ran out of money so even if they eventually win, they've already had to file for bankruptcy and Thiel has already won.
SolidChamp
Banned
BUNTING1243
Banned
that's to say nothing of the various other lawsuits that Theil is supporting against specific gawker writers with the explicit purpose of financially ruining them like he did to the editor of the hogan post.
no one actually thinks the guy who claimed to invented email when he didn't is actually going to win his lawsuit against Sam Biddle, but you can see a scenario where Biddle is crippled financially against Theil's seemingly infinite legal fees and maneuvers.
no one actually thinks the guy who claimed to invented email when he didn't is actually going to win his lawsuit against Sam Biddle, but you can see a scenario where Biddle is crippled financially against Theil's seemingly infinite legal fees and maneuvers.
Well, that's quite the coincidence: I was about the respond to the same post with the same quote from the same article.
But I previewed it first and saw your response, so I won't bother.
I'd just read a few days ago that Thiel's lawyers was suing a handful or so other Gawker writers in unrelated cases, and that the lawyers were attempting to prevent Gawker from paying legal defense for those individuals. This sounds like what they were able to succeed in doing with Daulerio, at least at first brush.
BUNTING1243
Banned
Yep! Biddle and John Cooke weren't involved in Theil's outing post, but they'll suffer just the same for writing for the "wrong" outlet if Theil gets his way.
It's such a disturbing use of wealth.
Not only that, but the majority of what is tagged there doesnt have to do with the decision hulk won on.
Do you think they would let them litigate again if the matter had already been decided? Look up Res Judicata and get back to me on that one. I don't have a dog in the fight, so I don't care who wins. All I know is that hulk won his case, and even if we lived in bizarro world where a judge was intentionally hearing a case where he knew he was not appropriately taking into account the decisions of higher courts and furthermore knew he was going to rule against them, it still would be irrelevant as a clients inability to fund an appeal is not the victors fault.
Can you elaborate on what you think I have mixed up? I'm fully aware preliminary injunctions have a different set of standards. The federal case that Hogan backed out of wasn't just about copyright -- he was claiming invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress, and he was losing.
BronsonLee
Member
Collateral damage is a thing though
Hulk only has one weakness and that's his ex wife. Otherwise he's impenetrable.
BUNTING1243
Banned
I don't really get what you're saying, are you justifying this or am I missing a reference?
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
There is no points score in a case. He was not losing, the only ruling was on a preliminary injunction on copyright infringement:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In Adv FDCO 131011-000161/BOLLEA v. GAWKER MEDIA, LLC
Sure, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest Hogan pulled out of the federal case because it looked like he was going to lose, which is all I suggested by that remark. I think it's kind of silly for you to say he wasn't losing the case when he voluntarily dismissed it (so that he could basically pursue the same case in a more favorable forum that would rule in his favor when he was denied the same thing in the federal court).
Darryl M R
Member
You are not losing if you choose a more favorable forum. You might as well say every litigator is losing a case when they try to move to a favorable forum.
You claimed that the federal court already ruled in favor of Gawker on his claims, that is categorically false.
They denied a preliminary injunction, but said that his rights are best addressed after a full trial, not a preliminary injunction:
You claimed he was losing the case, he was not.
You claimed he sued for the same injunction in Florida, he was not.
...except he didn't just move forums randomly -- he did so after suffering defeats when he was denied the injunction twice. Again, you're taking issue with me describing him as "losing" a case where his injunction was defeated and he voluntarily dismissed the case (presumably because he didn't like how it was going).
Notice the use of the term "basically." The federal court had already ruled in favor of Gawker (in the context of the injunction, which I made very clear in my post).
"And Hogan only won that injunction after losing in federal court requesting the same thing"
"federal judge Whittmore rules in favor of Gawker when Hogan asks for injunction"
...well duh, he was only ruling on the injunction. I'm wondering if you're actually a lawyer as you seem to have suggested.
First, both cases were in Florida. Second, you posted a link to the supplemental document where he ruled against the injunction after the lawsuit had been amended to add a copyright claim, but Hogan was already denied the injunction a month earlier based on the original claims of invasion of privacy etc: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2886541051181442321&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44. He lost on those grounds, amended the lawsuit with the copyright claim to try again, lost again. And somehow you still take issue with me suggesting he was "losing" lol.
So you were wrong to suggest "the only ruling was on a preliminary injunction on copyright infringement". You're the one that seems to have things mixed up. And again, I'd like to point out that the injunction he won in state court was ruled unconstitutional by the higher appeals court, so I don't think it's accurate when you imply the state lawsuit somehow had more merit than the federal lawsuit.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Funny thing is both cooke and Biddle went to first look and the intercept (I think cooke as since left)
And the founder of that and financial backer is funding the appeal. My guess is he wants an appeals court to get a new Sullivan v new York times decision.
The intercept is getting more and more into non-us government stuff and I hope Biddle goes back in to the valleywag type stuff. We have a sycophantic tech press and it needs to be challenged
Denial of an preliminary injunction where the court says the ruling should be on the merits and not on a preliminary injunction is not losing.
A preliminary injunction is not litigating a case. It is also not "basically" litigating a case. The preliminary injunction ruling even says that they want the case to be litigated.
"And Hogan only won that injunction after losing in federal court requesting the same thing"
"federal judge Whittmore rules in favor of Gawker when Hogan asks for injunction"
[/quote]
How do you claim that a case is basically litigated and a court has ruled when the ruling says that the case needs to be litigated and a preliminary injunction (which is not a litigation of the merits of the case)?
By Florida, I meant Florida state courts, and not federal courts.
The Appeals court only ruled on the preliminary injunction and not the merits of the case, and also held that the Federal preliminary injunction decision had no preclusive effect:
How does the above even imply that the issue has been basically litigated?
You continue to mix up preliminary injunctions with final rulings. The fact that higher courts have ruled on preliminary injunctions, citing that the issue is better decided on a case fully litigated on the merits, should not mean that a case fully litigated on the merits should not be considered. It is the opposite of what the higher courts are saying.
I acknowledge that there were two preliminary injunction decisions in the federal court instead of one, but that does not change my point, that preliminary injunction decisions are different than final judgments.
When you've got a billionaire on your side.. unposssible is nothing.
You're being pedantic. Hogan lost two attempts to get an injunction before dropping the rest of that lawsuit. I'd call that losing. Maybe you wouldn't, but that doesn't mean you can come up with this bullshit where you accuse me of not knowing the difference between rulings on preliminary injunctions and final case rulings.
Yeah, I knew what you meant, but I figured because you were such a stickler, you'd appreciate the correction
I guess I need to quote the definition of "basically," haha.
"used to indicate that a statement summarizes the most important aspects, or gives a roughly accurate account, of a more complex situation."
I used the term "basically" because I knew I was omitting details like that in some instances, it was only the injunctions that were litigated rather than the entire case. I had already clarified that in the rest of my post, yet here you are AGAIN taking it out of context after I've clarified over and over in addition to quoting the parts of my original post that make it clear I knew the differences all along.
Ok, you're seriously being disingenuous here. I never said rulings on preliminary injunctions are the same as final judgements -- I've already clarified the opposite, in fact -- and I've already done so in direct response to you, so you should know better. You're now intentionally taking my use of "basically" out of context to create a pathetic strawman argument that barely has anything to do with what we were actually talking about (whether Gawker has a reasonable chance to win another appeal).
Nah they'll be remembered for their actions causing a horrible precedent to be set that the powerful can exert even further control over media.
It is not a strawman argument. You imply that the rulings are equivalent right here:
If you acknowledge that what has been basically litigated in the three courts is completely different, with two of the higher courts saying that a preliminary/temporary injunction is improper and that they explicitly defer to the lower court to rule on the merits, than your argument doesn't make too much sense.
If the preliminary injunctions say: "any violation is best redressed after a trial on the merits" that does not mean you are losing. There are 2 things Hogan wanted 1) to immediately get the video taken down and 2) get compensation for invasion of privacy rights and IIED. The fact that the court denies the immediate taking down of the video (and says that the issue is best litigated on the merits) does not mean that the courts are denying the compensation for invasion of privacy and IIED. It is not pedantic to say that only 1 court has ruled on the merits of the case, rather than your claim that "this has basically been litigated in three separate courts and 2/3rds of those ruled in Gawker's favor instead".
So you're just going to keep taking that sentence out of context ad infinitum? Or do you also not know what "out of context" means?
edit: seriously:
Here's the context you keep omitting in case you forgot:
Somehow you read all that and think I don't know the difference? Bad reading comprehension. But my bet is you're not that dumb -- you're just trying to save face because your original contention was debunked.
So you're just going to keep taking that sentence out of context ad infinitum? Or do you also not know what "out of context" means?
edit: seriously:
Here's the context you keep omitting in case you forgot:
Somehow you read all that and think I don't know the difference? Bad reading comprehension. But my bet is you're not that dumb -- you're just trying to save face because your original contention was debunked.
There is no face saving here. You claimed he was losing on the basis of preliminary injunctions. I disagree that you are losing a case if preliminary injunctions are denied, and there are literally thousands of such examples. You offer the preliminary injunctions as evidence of how a case on the merits should be decided at trial and on appeal, I just do not agree. The preliminary injunction regarding the publication and the trial on the compensation are two separate issues.
Maybe on Bizzaro-Earth but back here on our Earth Gawker won't be remembered at all in 5 years.
Turned to dust in the wind by the Hogan-Thiel tag team.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked