• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Joni

Member
Melania Trump also sued a no-name blogger to prevent this from going to federal court, after the blogger and Daily Mail issued retractions. She wants to bleed them both dry through legal fees.

But do go on over how this doesn't set precedent.

So what do you mind? That there is a precedent for stopping sex video distribution? That libel laws apply to rich people as well? What is the precedent that you hate and why should journalists be above the law on this?
 

numble

Member
Melania Trump also sued a no-name blogger to prevent this from going to federal court, after the blogger and Daily Mail issued retractions. She wants to bleed them both dry through legal fees.

But do go on over how this doesn't set precedent.
Prevent what from going to federal court? All those cases can also be examples of preventing your own suit from going to federal court. Trump sued an author for $5 billion in New Jersey superior court, which would prevent the case from going to federal court. You can choose where you want to sue. Has been the case forever. If you go to law school you are *required* to take civil procedure where you spend a lot of time on your right to choosing and moving forums. Most individual plaintiffs do not use federal courts unless it is regarding something like IP law.
 

twinturbo2

butthurt Heat fan
All the types of things that happened before the Gawker lawsuit ever came about. Do you think the concept of bleeding someone dry through the legal system is new?

You're not going to defend that, are you?

Look, Univision got cold feet and ordered the deletion of six Gawker posts related to litigation. Just happened.

http://gizmodo.com/univision-executives-vote-to-delete-six-gawker-media-po-1786466510

All:

Earlier this evening, our acquirer Unimoda invoked the provision in the Gawker Media Group WGA-East contract regarding the removal of posts. I was informed that Felipe Holguin, the chief operating officer of Fusion Media Group, had been named interim CEO of Gawker Media, and Jay Grant, the general counsel of Fusion Media Group, had been named interim general counsel of Gawker Media. As you know, the collective bargaining agreement calls for a majority vote among the general counsel, CEO, and executive editor before a post is removed. Taken together, the persons occupying those roles comprise an Editorial Independence Committee under the agreement.

Felipe and Jay proposed that seven posts—all on Jezebel, Deadspin, or Gizmodo—be deleted. The posts are as follows:

1. The Inventor of Email Did Not Invent Email?, Gizmodo, February 22, 2012.

2. Corruption, Lies, and Death Threats: The Crazy Story of the Man Who Pretended To Invent Email, Gizmodo, March 5, 2012.

3. Acquitted Rapist Sues Blog For Calling Him Serial Rapist, Jezebel, May 11, 2011.

4. Wait, Did Clowntroll Blogger Chuck Johnson Shit On The Floor One Time?, Deadspin, December 9, 2014.

5. Uber Drivers in California Will Be Employees, Not Contractors, Gizmodo, June 17, 2015.

6. Mitch Williams Ejected from Child’s Baseball Game for Arguing, Cursing, Deadspin, May 11, 2014.

7. Witnesses: Mitch Williams Called Child ‘A Pussy,’ Ordered Beanball, Deadspin, May 16, 2014.

Felipe and Jay explained that they proposed deleting those seven posts because they are currently the subject of active litigation against Gawker Media, and that Unimoda had been authorized only to purchase the assets, and not the liabilities, of the company. Though the posts were published by Gawker Media, and therefore under the so-called “first publication rule” should only be the legal responsibility of the Gawker Media estate being left behind in the transaction, Unimoda’s legal analysis was that the continued publication of the posts under the new entitity would constitute the adoption of liability, and that Unimoda is therefore obligated to delete them. Felipe and Jay represented to me that their decision to propose deletion of the posts was purely a function of the terms of the transaction, and that Univision and Unimoda are committed to defending our journalism against any future legal threats or attacks.

I communicated to Felipe and Jay in the strongest terms that deleting these posts is a mistake, and that disappearing true posts about public figures simply because they have been targeted by a lawyer who conspired with a vindictive billionaire to destroy this company is an affront to the very editorial ethos that has made us successful enough to be worth acquiring. I told them that I am proud that this company refused to delete its accurate posts about Shiva Ayudurrai’s false claim to have invented the email system of communication, and that I am proud that our decision not to take down accurate posts about Mitch Williams’ meltdown at a children’s baseball game was vindicated by a federal judge, who ruled in our favor in his case against us. I am mortified to see them taken down now. We are at the center of an unprecedented assault on the ability of reporters and editors to challenge and critique public figures. While I believe that Univision is a company that values and defends aggressive, independent reporting, the decision to remove these posts is, in my view, at odds with its tradition of confronting bullies with honesty.

I cast my vote against taking down each of the posts. I lost. With the exception of #5, which is the target of a copyright complaint, Felipe and Jay cast their votes in favor of removal. The transaction is expected to close at 11:59 p.m. tonight. The posts will be removed over the weekend. With respect to #5: I argued that removing the photo that was targeted in the copyright complaint, but keeping the text of the post online, should satisfy Unimoda’s concerns about liability. Jay agreed to table a decision on that post pending further legal analysis.

I asked that I be able to propose language to replace each post indicating that it had been taken down, why, and by whom. Jay agreed to consider that request and to review my proposed text.

I am proud to have worked for a company that has fought, to the bitter end, against cynical and craven attempts to silence our work. Despite this defeat, I hope that Univision’s attitude to our journalism going forward will permit me to regain that sense of pride.

John

So tell me again, how is this not precedent?
 
3VGtVMO.png


The Gizmodo Media group? Hopefully it has a better reputation than the Gawker one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom