Kotaku has broken legit stories. Pretty big ones too.....those press sneak fucks....
Doesn't outweigh the bad they spew out, though.
I think their sonic story and smash bros isnt good?Where exactly is the bad of Kotaku?
Kotaku has broken legit stories. Pretty big ones too.....those press sneak fucks....
Doesn't outweigh the bad they spew out, though.
Good luck with that.I can't wait for the appeal when the courts overturn all this nonsense
I can't wait for the appeal when the courts overturn all this nonsense
Hogan wins another one. Dude has to sell his apartment
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hulk-hogan-wins-another-round-against-nick-denton-1472157698
Preliminary rulings on copyright and first amendment claims have little to do with final judgments on privacy rights and IIED claims.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?
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.
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.
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 can't wait for the appeal when the courts overturn all this nonsense
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gawker will be remembered in history as that site that outed a gay guy against his wishes for no reason other than a good laugh and ad revenue
Gawker is the victim of a bully campaign by sad rich men.
Griffith did nothing wrong.
Kotaku has broken legit stories. Pretty big ones too.....those press sneak fucks....
Doesn't outweigh the bad they spew out, though.
Nothing nonsense about it. Appeals are only for errors in law or overriding errors in the original judges appreciation of the facts and evidence. Neither seem to be present in the case. He quite clearly violated someone's reasonable expectation of privacy and is feeling the burn appropriately.
Since Hogan lives in Florida and Gawker is based in New York, Hogan originally filed a suit against the company in Floridas Middle District federal court. He also asked the federal judge, James Whittemore, to grant a temporary injunction against the Gawker post, forcing the company to remove it. Judge Whittemore denied Hogans motion, ruling that Gawkers publication of the video was protected by the First Amendment.
Sensing defeat, Hogan dismissed the federal court case and instead pulled Gawker into Florida state court. Hogan had already filed a suit in state court against Bubba Clem for recording the video, so he just added Gawker as a defendant to the suit. (He later settled with Bubba Clem, for just $5,000, and with Heather Clem.) He then asked the state court judge, Pamela Campbell, for the temporary injunction that Judge Whittemore had denied him; she granted it.
Gawker appealed the injunction, and Floridas Second District Court of Appeal issued an immediate stay, which prevented the injunction from going into effect. Eight months later, the appeals court issued a scathing opinion that overturned Campbells order on the grounds that the video was newsworthy and Gawker's publication of it was protected by the First Amendment.
Armed with the appeals court decision, Gawker went back to Campbell and asked her to dismiss the case, since the appeals court had just ruled that publishing the video was protected by the First Amendment. Campbell refused.
Heres where it gets (even more) complicated. Gawker went back to the appeals court and complained that Campbell had ignored their earlier ruling. Gawker then filed a writ a formal request for the appeals court to take up the case and rule on whether or not Hogans suit should be dismissed on First Amendment grounds. The appeals court dismissed the writ, but did not deny it. For Gawker's legal team, that distinction is key. Denying the writ would mean that the appeals court rejected Gawkers argument that publishing the sex tape was protected by the First Amendment. Dismissing the writ only means that the appeals court did not have the jurisdiction to dismiss the case.
To Gawkers lawyers, the dismissal was a signal; the appeals court was indicating that even though it could not force Campbell to dismiss the suit, it still agreed with Gawkers legal argument and would rule in Gawkers favor when the case was inevitably appealed.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/media/story...s-gawker-looks-to-appeal-004433#ixzz4Ig4W4E15
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Hogan wins another one. Dude has to sell his apartment
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hulk-hogan-wins-another-round-against-nick-denton-1472157698
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. Hogan files federal lawsuit in Florida, federal judge Whittmore rules in favor of Gawker when Hogan asks for injunction.
2. Hogan gives up that case, adds Gawker to a lower state lawsuit with state judge Campbell, Hogan wins injunction he lost in federal court
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 Hogan (this was expected).
8. Next step would be to appeal rest of case as they had with the injunction, but Gawker ran out of money so even if they eventually win, they've already had to file for bankruptcy.
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.
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.
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.HoganThiel files federal lawsuit in Florida, federal judge Whittmore rules in favor of Gawker whenHoganThiel asks for injunction.
2.HoganThiel gives up that case, adds Gawker to a lower state lawsuit with state judge Campbell,HoganThiel wins the injunction he lost in federal court
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 ofHoganThiel (this was expected).
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.
Are you a lawyer? You have a bunch of things mixed up. Federal copyright claims and preliminary injunctions are different matters of law compared to state privacy rights and IIED.
Are you a lawyer? You have a bunch of things mixed up. Federal copyright claims and preliminary injunctions are different matters of law compared to state privacy rights and IIED.
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.
Hogan wins another one. Dude has to sell his apartment
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hulk-hogan-wins-another-round-against-nick-denton-1472157698
I don't really get what you're saying, are you justifying this or am I missing a reference?Collateral damage is a thing though
Hulk only has one weakness and that's his ex wife. Otherwise he's impenetrable.
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.
Hulk only has one weakness and that's his ex wife. Otherwise he's impenetrable.
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
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.
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).
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.
If it is ultimately found that Defendants have infringed a valid copyright held by Plaintiff, any violation is best redressed after a trial on the merits rather than by a prior restraint in derogation of the First Amendment.
...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).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.
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).You claimed that the federal court already ruled in favor of Gawker on his claims, that is categorically false.
...well duh, he was only ruling on the injunction. I'm wondering if you're actually a lawyer as you seem to have suggested.They denied a preliminary injunction, but said that his rights are best addressed after a full trial, not a preliminary injunction:
You claimed he sued for the same injunction in Florida, he was not.
Funny thing is both cooke and Biddle went to first look and the intercept (I think cooke as since left)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.
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....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).
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.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).
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)?...well duh, he was only ruling on the injunction. I'm wondering if you're actually a lawyer as you seem to have suggested.
By Florida, I meant Florida state courts, and not federal courts.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
So I think you're off base to suggest it was simply a difference in copyright vs privacy rights. 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.
In this case, the federal court did not draw any decisive conclusions on the merits, nor did the federal court even address the likelihood of success thereon; rather, the federal court found that Mr. Bollea was not entitled to injunctive relief at a preliminary stage in the proceedings. See Bollea I, 2012 WL 5509624, at *25. And though the federal court's order is unquestionably persuasive, based on the foregoing, we decline to give it preclusive effect.
It's crazy how a man lost literally everything for revealing someone had sex with someone. Just crazy in general.
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.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.
Yeah, I knew what you meant, but I figured because you were such a stickler, you'd appreciate the correctionBy Florida, I meant Florida state courts, and not federal courts.
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.
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)?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is not a strawman argument. You imply that the rulings are equivalent right here:
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.
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.HoganThiel files federal lawsuit in Florida, federal judge Whittmore rules in favor of Gawker whenHoganThiel asks for injunction.
2.HoganThiel gives up that case, adds Gawker to a lower state lawsuit with state judge Campbell,HoganThiel wins the injunction he lost in federal court
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 ofHoganThiel (this was expected).
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.
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.
![]()
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.