11 ms·

Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

151 points by boardmad 11y ago

teach 11y ago
Good for him. I think Jerry "Tycho" Holkins expresses best how I feel about Gawker in this whole affair. https://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2016/03/14/the-didactic-order https://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2016/03/14/the-didact...
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Wow that's some biblical denunciations right there. Nidhogg!
- Analemma_ 11y ago
  Ugh, no thank you. I've liked some of Jerry's opinion pieces in the past, but I think he's way off the mark here, especially with this: > The causes they enunciate are tarnished, just for being in their mouths. That's the kind of thinking that gets you atrocious policy, especially in the judicial sphere. As I said below, people who want bad to enshrine bad precedent will pick the most unsympathetic targets in the courts in order to get it - including law enforcement (actually, especially law enforcement. Why isn't Apple helping the FBI stop terrorists???) The courts sometimes see through this trick. Did you know that your Miranda rights exist because the Supreme Court threw out the conviction of a scumbag who had, indisputably, robbed and raped a mentally handicapped girl? It's sad that they didn't this time though, and that apparently the vox populi didn't either.
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    Miranda did not create any rights, only the requirement that the government inform you of your rights...
    - Analemma_ 11y ago
      My wording probably could've been better, but the point still stands: you have legal protection from government overreach thanks to a court decision in favor of a rotten defendant. There are plenty of other examples throughout history if that one is not convincing.
    - Crito 11y ago
      If the government is required do something for you ("inform you of your rights", in this case), then wouldn't it be reasonable to say you say that you have the right to that service? Miranda created the right to have the government inform you of your rights.
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        Exactly and that new right is actually very important. We should not expect the average person to have enough legal training to know their rights at all times.
  - magicalist 11y ago
    > That's the kind of thinking that gets you atrocious policy, especially in the judicial sphere Er, he's calling them a bottom feeding tabloid rag. What does that have to do with policy or precedent? (notably that post was from four days ago, not in reaction to the ruling)
fweespee_ch 11y ago
Good. Gawker, frankly, needs to be destroyed at this point. I'm all for free speech but you don't need to post non-consensual porn to the internet to accomplish that.
minimaxir 11y ago
Before anyone goes on a "Gawker is a terrible site, they deserve it" tangent, keep in mind that this does set precedent for other individuals to sue other media companies for massive amounts of money, which could be another problem for an already-struggling ecosystem. (Although in fairness, this incident is particularly egregious, especially as they disobeyed a judge's order to take down the video)
- Analemma_ 11y ago
  Exactly. Looking around on Twitter and in the comments sections of other sites reporting on this verdict, I'm seeing a worryingly positive response based on nothing but negative feelings about Gawker. Yes, Gawker sucks, but never forget that there are bad people who want to pick easy targets for example cases in order to set bad judicial precedent, and this is some truly atrocious precedent.
  - PascalsMugger 11y ago
    What exactly is the atrocious precedent here? This wasn't speech about someone, it wasn't noteworthy speech of someone's actions, it was speech about someone's very private actions. In many states it's illegal to record a private conversation unless both people consent, and yet somehow making a sex tape without someone's knowledge and releasing is a worse precedent? There is no slippery slope here. Free speech advocates should look in another castle.
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  At best this is an argument for tort reform*. Gawker's actions here are not defensible. Edit: meaning improved protections against baseless lawsuits that could be damaging regardless of their merit. The simple way to protect your news company from being sued for releasing leaked sex tapes is to simply not release leaked sex tapes, which I think will be the major takeaway from this case.
  - polishninja 11y ago
    On the topic of tort reform, I'd suggest the documentary Hot Coffee. It obviously has a bias but it really made an impact on how I view these large settlements. These huge sums are required to set an example and not just be a fine. If he only won $500,000, then then next time a similar situation arises it just becomes a math question. Can they can earn more than $500,000 by releasing and paying the "fine". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(film)
sportanova 11y ago
What's the time table for Gawker's payment? Can they appeal without paying?
- Analemma_ 11y ago
  In many states you don't have to pay until the appeals process is complete, but in Florida you have to pay (or at least post a bond, it's unclear) immediately. There's a good chance Gawker will be closing down.
  - pgrote 11y ago
    "Florida law requires a party to post a bond for the full amount of damages, but that is capped at $50 million #hulkvsgawk" https://twitter.com/TomKludt/status/710964054060355584 https://twitter.com/TomKludt/status/710964054060355584
- tptacek 11y ago
  My understanding is that they have to put $50MM in escrow immediately, and there's already a legal dispute with their insurers.
  - pgrote 11y ago
    They settled the lawsuit with nautilus from what I understand. The link is from Google News so you can see the whole article. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj4npqGxcvLAhVovoMKHTlrAEkQqQIIHygAMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law360.com%2Farticles%2F628761%2Fgawker-nautilus-settle-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-coverage-suit&usg=AFQjCNEQH-v6wkJX-b2kTgv6LwrXGOA17w&sig2=ryRHjD0ZBiSMginGqjpQ_g https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newss... "he website claimed that along with Chubb Insurance Co., it had agreed to forgo $600,000 in defense costs in exchange for Nautilus’ agreement to defend it from July 2013 onward. In a motion for summary judgment filed in October 2014, Nautilus said that its policy only covered “accidents,” and said that Gawker’s intentional release of the tape and its accompanying story didn’t qualify. Gawker responded with a cross-motion for summary judgment in November, arguing that its policy covered damages from bodily injury, which “indisputably include emotional distress and mental anguish” under New York law. Friday’s settlement put an end to those competing motions."
pgrote 11y ago
Nick Denton statement on the jury verdict: https://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/710973280308559873 https://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/710973280308559873 Hulk Hogan statement on the jury verdict: https://twitter.com/HulkHogan/status/710988297284292608 https://twitter.com/HulkHogan/status/710988297284292608
- SixSigma 11y ago
  thanks god forgets god did it to him in the first place
tomp 11y ago
I'm not sure how I feel about the verdict (freedom of speech vs privacy), but I'm really happy that the media sexist bias was exposed. It was really distasteful how they were criticising and condemning "The Fappening" (i.e. female stolen porn) while happily participating in the reverse (Hulk Hogan's male stolen porn).
- tptacek 11y ago
  Bollea's "porn" wasn't "stolen". It was created without his knowledge and circulated by the person who created it, which is how it leaked. That doesn't remotely describe what happened to the women whose pictures were published a few years back. It's a little disquieting to read a comment that suggests there might have been a free speech angle to the latter story. Bollea's case might (in fact, probably will) be reversed on appeal.
  - rco8786 11y ago
    Is it being created without his knowledge better or wore than what happened in the fappening? I'm not sure what your comment is trying to say. Both things sound pretty horrendous.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      I agree that they are both horrendous!
    - moistgorilla 11y ago
      While both are horrendous, I think we can say that having intimate photos of you taken without your knowledge being spread is worth than having photos you took being spread. The reason being that in the first case your rights to privacy were actually violated twice.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        No.
tptacek 11y ago
I think @Popehat summed this up nicely: https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/710972390566563845 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/710972390566563845 First they came for Gawker, and I did not speak out. Because fuck Gawker.
- krapp 11y ago
  This may be one of the few times a "First They Came" reference on the internet wasn't completely inane.
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    Give it time...
- verroq 11y ago
  Bad things happen to bad people too :^)
  - codezero 11y ago
    And good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to good people.
- MajesticHobo 11y ago
  That's not a nice summary at all. It's a (mildly amusing) inane quip that also happens to miss the point.
  - draw_down 11y ago
    I dunno, I think it hits the nail on the head. They're such pieces of shit, but that's not always a good reason to be happy someone lost a lawsuit.
    - MajesticHobo 11y ago
return0 11y ago
I still don't understand the fascination with celebrities, esp. in the anglo world.
- rco8786 11y ago
  Been around since the beginning of time, in all worlds.
- moistgorilla 11y ago
  >esp. in the anglo world oh god, you think it's bad here in the anglo world? Don't look at Korea and Japan then.
bbanyc 11y ago
Both sides in this case were utterly contemptible. I would have found that Gawker invaded Hogan's privacy and awarded Hogan one dollar in damages, leaving everyone unhappy but the lawyers. Invasion of privacy, despite its questionable origins, is now generally recognized as a valid tort and outside of the protections of the First Amendment. No new precedent is being set here.
- tptacek 11y ago
  I don't think Bollea is a particularly good person, but I'm not clear on how his conduct in this controversy was "contemptible". For the 1A concern here, consider the Anthony Weiner case, in which indisputably private photos of Weiner were also published. I don't like that they were (I think he could have been just as effectively ejected from public life with good writing) but it's concerning to think that he'd have a tort hammer to swing to keep the story from coming out at all.
  - fweespee_ch 11y ago
    Wasn't Anthony Weiner cover in the pictures the media published [i.e. boxers]? The line should be drawn at pornography/actual nudity being published without people's consent. Good writing is sufficient to convey the message.
  - koolba 11y ago
    In the Wiener case he was sending the pictures of his crotch via SMS. There's no expectation of privacy from content that you've shared willingly, no matter how perverted the content.
    - abiox 11y ago
      if someone decides to sms bank account info to their spouse, is it then appropriate that their account info is published, because they have no expectation of privacy?
      - koolba 11y ago
danso 11y ago
I've long stopped reading Gawker for serious news or even entertainment...but I'm going to miss it as it is possibly the only independent online media outlet that actually made a profit. BuzzFeed might make a profit but NBC(Comcast) owns $200M of it [1]. Vox, too, got $200M from NBC [2]. Vice, as far as anyone can tell, is not near profitability (it just started its own TV channel), and has $400M from Disney [3]...and everyone else that is not a traditional news organization is not really on the radar for long-term viability. What's sad is that this was pretty much an unforced error. They already got plenty of page views from the post that described seeing the tape. The editor who made the decision is no longer even there and failed at his own online media startup. What shouldn't be overlooked is how much Gawker invested in its own content-management system, Kinja...the estimates are as high as $20 million for what is literally a glorified, multi-site commenting system [4]. Very few online organizations could survive that kind of sunk investment...Gawker's editorial bent was such that it would post the Hogan tape just for the hell of it rather than to make pageview profit...but Gawker pretty much lost all of its great writers and reporters over the past two years, including Adrian Chen (who now seems to regularly turn huge features at the NYT and the New Yorker) and Nitasha Tiku. I'm going to miss Deadspin especially. Sports news and entertainment was already monopolized by ESPN/Disney...we don't even have Grantland anymore. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/18/buzzfeed-nbcuniversal/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/18/buzzfeed-nbcuniversal/ [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/business/media/nbcuniversal-invests-200-million-in-vox-media.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/business/media/nbcuniversa... [3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-08/disney-said-to-double-investment-in-vice-media-to-400-million http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-08/disney-sai... [4] http://digiday.com/publishers/gawkers-kinja-retreat-shows-false-hope-in-publishers-licensing-tech/ http://digiday.com/publishers/gawkers-kinja-retreat-shows-fa...
- jewbacca 11y ago
  re Grantland: I'm not sure if this news has circulated widely beyond people who listen to his podcast[0], but Bill Simmons (founder of Grantland, creator of '30 for 30'; fired by ESPN/Disney last year after criticizing Roger Goodell) has hired the core of Grantland's former writers, editors and staff, to start 'The Ringer': http://theringer.com http://theringer.com Currently half-launched as an email newsletter, presumably while the infrastructure for a proper website is being developed. If Deadspin does indeed shut down after this (... though I think the people in this discussion are taking this as far more of a given than it is), then there will be a massive hole in this side of independent sports media, that The Ringer would be a top contender for filling. -- [0] http://thebillsimmonspodcast.tumblr.com/tagged/Bill-Simmons http://thebillsimmonspodcast.tumblr.com/tagged/Bill-Simmons
Trisell 11y ago
I agree that we live in a country With a constitution that gives us free speech, but while we have the right to say something, that doesn't relieve us of the responsibility of what we say. Gawker had every right to post this video, they also now have the full responsibility for the consequences. This case has established that you can still post sex tapes, but you now run the very real risk of loosing a lot in doing that. This court case doesn't say you can't, it just says that doing it could be prohibitively expensive to do it.
- newjersey 11y ago
  So obviously the next step is to form a shell company, put a sucker with no money in charge of it, incorporate that off shore, and host anything shady with them, not cooperate or collaborate with them wink wink (just like political candidates do not coordinate with superpacs wink wink). Everyone on the Internet from ACLU and EFF will rightly defend the right to link. Well, the sleazy tabloids will continue doing what they do. This is no win for privacy because it only protects those who are willing to go to court over this. Gawker is scum (particularly for doxxing people) but Hulk Hogan is no saint either. Edit: grammar and spelling
- jevinskie 11y ago
  Are rights that you have to pay a lot of money for really rights? See poll taxes. I'm not arguing either way about the current case in question.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ps4fanboy 11y ago
Gawker said it best, http://jezebel.com/5985635/an-idiots-guide-to-free-speech http://jezebel.com/5985635/an-idiots-guide-to-free-speech
skuhn 11y ago
Putting aside the matter of case itself, I'm getting a lot of schadenfreude out of watching Gawker fail to hold itself to the same standards it keeps for everyone else. As of now, two plus hours after TechCrunch [1], BBC [2], Recode [3], CNN [4], Buzzfeed [5], HN [6], Ars Technica [7], Wired [8], Slate [9] and countless other sites have all published articles about the verdict, Gawker's site is silent on the topic. And this comes after they've done daily articles throughout the trial, but now the pill is apparently too bitter to swallow. I don't think that being first is always best, but Gawker sure seemed to think so up until now. Apparently reveling in public about their own misfortune is finally the bridge too far. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/18/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115m-in-sex-tape-lawsuit-against-gawker/ http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/18/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115m... [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35849140 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35849140 [3] http://recode.net/2016/03/18/florida-jury-hands-hulk-hogan-a-115-million-victory-in-the-gawker-sex-tape-trial/ http://recode.net/2016/03/18/florida-jury-hands-hulk-hogan-a... [4] http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/18/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-jury-deliberations/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/18/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-jury... [5] http://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorgantopoulos/hulk-hogan-gawker-sex-tape-lawsuit-verdict#.qlXQeygRm http://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorgantopoulos/hulk-hogan-ga... [6] right here! [7] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/115-million-verdict-in-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-lawsuit-could-wipe-out-gawker/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/115-million-verdi... [8] http://www.wired.com/2016/03/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115-million-gawker-sex-tape-post/ http://www.wired.com/2016/03/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115-mill... [9] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/18/jury_awards_hulk_hogan_115_million_in_gawker_suit_punitive_damages_still.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/18/jury_award...
crikli 11y ago
Yeah, fuck Gawker (and Deadspin too, for that matter) but if this means the death of Jalopnik that's going to free up at least an hour of my day. :(
spriggan3 11y ago
So I see a lot of journalists on twitter defending Gawker. In my opinion Gawker is making journalists look bad at first place. I believe in press freedom but is "revenge porn" freedom of press ? If an unknown party leaked that sex tape, most journalists would condemn that and not label it "freedom of speech" so why the double standard ?
- rodgerd 11y ago
  Well, the Gawker empire already answered that question: they were highly critical of Reddit for hosting /r/fappening (rightly so, in my opinion), so it's more than a little rank to do an about face on this. I certainly agree that it's difficult to see anything resembling a meaningful public interest in publishing the tapes - I'm surprised but pleased to see that the US courts didn't do their normal "you're a public figure so you have no rights" as tends to be the case with defamation or privacy cases.
- mc32 11y ago
  Probably because they feel like they have to close ranks and defend a profession they see as being maligned. For them there is no grey, only black and white. All or nothing. For many other people there are degrees of freedom and rights. Their fear is that if they concede on this point, what else will they have to concede and will their profession back them when they are in the same position, but for more noble reasons. Self preservation and principle. They'd also get some peer pressure in the form of ostracism for breaking with the standard professional stance on the question.
  - clevernickname 11y ago
    Being maligned by whom? "Journalists" get to control the narrative on literally any topic they choose. They had to fuck up really hard to get the rest of the press to report against them, and even then this case isn't receiving anywhere near the coverage it deserves.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      And breaking ranks on an issue like this could be the mess up that gets the rest of the press to report against them in the future...
tdurden 11y ago
I am sure Gawker didn't help their case with jurors when they said they would only draw a line at posting a sex tape of a four year old [1]. If they did have a chance of winning this case, they totally shot themselves in the foot with their testimony. [1] http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-tape-of-a-4-year-old/ http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-tape-...
- themartorana 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure we can all agree he was being sarcastic and flippant after hours of being on the stand. I'm not making excuses, but the NY Post loves them a way-skewed sensational headline that isn't so grounded in reality.
  - tdurden 11y ago
    Totally agree on both points - but those kind of comments aren't going to score points with the jurors and influence the case.
  - Crito 11y ago
    Of course it was a joke. But what sort of person, in that sort of situation, makes a joke like that? Forget the NYP completely and watch the video of how it played out on court. He comes off as a complete piece of shit.
    - skuhn 11y ago
      That one quip really embodies the entire case against Gawker I think. Daulerio was found personally liable as part of this verdict, and he had to know what the stakes were when he testified. By making himself look callous, unsympathic and irresponsible just to satisfy a fleeting desire to be sardonic he did himself zero favors with the jury. It's not about scoring a zinger against the opposing counsel. It's about putting across your narrative with the jury. I highly doubt Daulerio's legal counsel thought that narrative should be that he's just a grade-A asshole. No surprise that someone who couldn't keep it together when it really mattered to him in a deeply personal way can't be trusted to maintain journalistic integrity during the day-to-day operations of a site.
gregpilling 11y ago
So let's see. Hulk Hogan is worth $25M according to the interwebs. His reputation is in tatters for the video of him doing something he did. So he gets awarded almost 5 times as much for lost earnings, as he is worth total? Of course we all know this will go to appeal, where the real fate will be decided. Gawker does not have 115M to pay, and Hulk is not likely to find himself 5x richer. The real question is where does the First Amendment end up with this ruling? That is the change (or not) that would matter most to the average citizen.
- nedwin 11y ago
  If Hulk is worth $25m and had his reputation heavily tarnished that effects his future earnings potential. Was he likely to make $115m over the rest of his life? We'll never know.
  - skuhn 11y ago
    Only $55m of the amount decided thus far was due to perceived economic damage. Also, punitive damages will be decided next week, and I fully expect they will be quite high given the way Gawker has presented themselves and the internal workings that have been shown in court. The economic damages are perhaps on the high side, but considering all of the ways Hogan has been able to license his brand up to this point -- and that those avenues are likely no longer open to him or at least greatly reduced -- it isn't out of the question that he could have earned that amount over the next 20 years.
    - biot 11y ago
      And not just for his lifetime, but also that of his estate once he passes. Hulk Hogan is, at this point, a brand with merchandise, video rights, and so on.
- themartorana 11y ago
  I'm personally not worried about the 1st. I'm personally not a lawyer either, so there's that... Ya know how if you buy a car second hand, and it turns out the car is stolen, you have to give it back, even if you bought it honestly? This feels similar to me. He never gave consent and had a reasonable expectation of privacy. While you can't give him back his privacy here, the video never existed in a public domain sans-crime, so it's publishing (much like your ownership and monetary outlay) is secondary. Except that here, Gawker was a party to the crime. For me, the 1st doesn't trump privacy. I have no doubt others feel differently.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
nradov 11y ago
Most of Gawker is terrible, but if the company goes down I hope Jalopnik survives in some form. They write good articles about cars and racing, and appear to maintain high ethical standards. http://jalopnik.com http://jalopnik.com
- jessaustin 11y ago
  I expect every "sub-property" will be sold to someone, although perhaps not for much money. Perhaps some other car-focused site will make the trustee an offer...
racl101 11y ago
Say your prayers! Take your vitamins! and bang your buddy's wife! And you too can make a sh!+load of money!
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
grghk 11y ago
On a side note: I can't find this tape anywhere inline. Quite the cleansing however they pulled that off.

151 points by boardmad 11y ago

teach 11y ago

Good for him. I think Jerry "Tycho" Holkins expresses best how I feel about Gawker in this whole affair. https://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2016/03/14/the-didactic-order https://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2016/03/14/the-didact...

jessaustin 11y ago
Wow that's some biblical denunciations right there. Nidhogg!
Analemma_ 11y ago
Ugh, no thank you. I've liked some of Jerry's opinion pieces in the past, but I think he's way off the mark here, especially with this: > The causes they enunciate are tarnished, just for being in their mouths. That's the kind of thinking that gets you atrocious policy, especially in the judicial sphere. As I said below, people who want bad to enshrine bad precedent will pick the most unsympathetic targets in the courts in order to get it - including law enforcement (actually, especially law enforcement. Why isn't Apple helping the FBI stop terrorists???) The courts sometimes see through this trick. Did you know that your Miranda rights exist because the Supreme Court threw out the conviction of a scumbag who had, indisputably, robbed and raped a mentally handicapped girl? It's sad that they didn't this time though, and that apparently the vox populi didn't either.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  Miranda did not create any rights, only the requirement that the government inform you of your rights...
  - Analemma_ 11y ago
    My wording probably could've been better, but the point still stands: you have legal protection from government overreach thanks to a court decision in favor of a rotten defendant. There are plenty of other examples throughout history if that one is not convincing.
  - Crito 11y ago
    If the government is required do something for you ("inform you of your rights", in this case), then wouldn't it be reasonable to say you say that you have the right to that service? Miranda created the right to have the government inform you of your rights.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      Exactly and that new right is actually very important. We should not expect the average person to have enough legal training to know their rights at all times.
- magicalist 11y ago
  > That's the kind of thinking that gets you atrocious policy, especially in the judicial sphere Er, he's calling them a bottom feeding tabloid rag. What does that have to do with policy or precedent? (notably that post was from four days ago, not in reaction to the ruling)

fweespee_ch 11y ago

Good. Gawker, frankly, needs to be destroyed at this point. I'm all for free speech but you don't need to post non-consensual porn to the internet to accomplish that.

minimaxir 11y ago

Before anyone goes on a "Gawker is a terrible site, they deserve it" tangent, keep in mind that this does set precedent for other individuals to sue other media companies for massive amounts of money, which could be another problem for an already-struggling ecosystem. (Although in fairness, this incident is particularly egregious, especially as they disobeyed a judge's order to take down the video)

Analemma_ 11y ago
Exactly. Looking around on Twitter and in the comments sections of other sites reporting on this verdict, I'm seeing a worryingly positive response based on nothing but negative feelings about Gawker. Yes, Gawker sucks, but never forget that there are bad people who want to pick easy targets for example cases in order to set bad judicial precedent, and this is some truly atrocious precedent.
- PascalsMugger 11y ago
  What exactly is the atrocious precedent here? This wasn't speech about someone, it wasn't noteworthy speech of someone's actions, it was speech about someone's very private actions. In many states it's illegal to record a private conversation unless both people consent, and yet somehow making a sex tape without someone's knowledge and releasing is a worse precedent? There is no slippery slope here. Free speech advocates should look in another castle.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
At best this is an argument for tort reform*. Gawker's actions here are not defensible. Edit: meaning improved protections against baseless lawsuits that could be damaging regardless of their merit. The simple way to protect your news company from being sued for releasing leaked sex tapes is to simply not release leaked sex tapes, which I think will be the major takeaway from this case.
- polishninja 11y ago
  On the topic of tort reform, I'd suggest the documentary Hot Coffee. It obviously has a bias but it really made an impact on how I view these large settlements. These huge sums are required to set an example and not just be a fine. If he only won $500,000, then then next time a similar situation arises it just becomes a math question. Can they can earn more than $500,000 by releasing and paying the "fine". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(film)

sportanova 11y ago

What's the time table for Gawker's payment? Can they appeal without paying?

Analemma_ 11y ago
In many states you don't have to pay until the appeals process is complete, but in Florida you have to pay (or at least post a bond, it's unclear) immediately. There's a good chance Gawker will be closing down.
- pgrote 11y ago
  "Florida law requires a party to post a bond for the full amount of damages, but that is capped at $50 million #hulkvsgawk" https://twitter.com/TomKludt/status/710964054060355584 https://twitter.com/TomKludt/status/710964054060355584
tptacek 11y ago
My understanding is that they have to put $50MM in escrow immediately, and there's already a legal dispute with their insurers.
- pgrote 11y ago
  They settled the lawsuit with nautilus from what I understand. The link is from Google News so you can see the whole article. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj4npqGxcvLAhVovoMKHTlrAEkQqQIIHygAMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law360.com%2Farticles%2F628761%2Fgawker-nautilus-settle-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-coverage-suit&usg=AFQjCNEQH-v6wkJX-b2kTgv6LwrXGOA17w&sig2=ryRHjD0ZBiSMginGqjpQ_g https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newss... "he website claimed that along with Chubb Insurance Co., it had agreed to forgo $600,000 in defense costs in exchange for Nautilus’ agreement to defend it from July 2013 onward. In a motion for summary judgment filed in October 2014, Nautilus said that its policy only covered “accidents,” and said that Gawker’s intentional release of the tape and its accompanying story didn’t qualify. Gawker responded with a cross-motion for summary judgment in November, arguing that its policy covered damages from bodily injury, which “indisputably include emotional distress and mental anguish” under New York law. Friday’s settlement put an end to those competing motions."

pgrote 11y ago

Nick Denton statement on the jury verdict: https://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/710973280308559873 https://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/710973280308559873 Hulk Hogan statement on the jury verdict: https://twitter.com/HulkHogan/status/710988297284292608 https://twitter.com/HulkHogan/status/710988297284292608

SixSigma 11y ago
thanks god forgets god did it to him in the first place

tomp 11y ago

I'm not sure how I feel about the verdict (freedom of speech vs privacy), but I'm really happy that the media sexist bias was exposed. It was really distasteful how they were criticising and condemning "The Fappening" (i.e. female stolen porn) while happily participating in the reverse (Hulk Hogan's male stolen porn).

tptacek 11y ago
Bollea's "porn" wasn't "stolen". It was created without his knowledge and circulated by the person who created it, which is how it leaked. That doesn't remotely describe what happened to the women whose pictures were published a few years back. It's a little disquieting to read a comment that suggests there might have been a free speech angle to the latter story. Bollea's case might (in fact, probably will) be reversed on appeal.
- rco8786 11y ago
  Is it being created without his knowledge better or wore than what happened in the fappening? I'm not sure what your comment is trying to say. Both things sound pretty horrendous.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I agree that they are both horrendous!
  - moistgorilla 11y ago
    While both are horrendous, I think we can say that having intimate photos of you taken without your knowledge being spread is worth than having photos you took being spread. The reason being that in the first case your rights to privacy were actually violated twice.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      No.

tptacek 11y ago

I think @Popehat summed this up nicely: https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/710972390566563845 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/710972390566563845 First they came for Gawker, and I did not speak out. Because fuck Gawker.

krapp 11y ago
This may be one of the few times a "First They Came" reference on the internet wasn't completely inane.
- stcredzero 11y ago
  Give it time...
verroq 11y ago
Bad things happen to bad people too :^)
- codezero 11y ago
  And good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to good people.
MajesticHobo 11y ago
That's not a nice summary at all. It's a (mildly amusing) inane quip that also happens to miss the point.
- draw_down 11y ago
  I dunno, I think it hits the nail on the head. They're such pieces of shit, but that's not always a good reason to be happy someone lost a lawsuit.
  - MajesticHobo 11y ago

return0 11y ago

I still don't understand the fascination with celebrities, esp. in the anglo world.

rco8786 11y ago
Been around since the beginning of time, in all worlds.
moistgorilla 11y ago
>esp. in the anglo world oh god, you think it's bad here in the anglo world? Don't look at Korea and Japan then.

bbanyc 11y ago

Both sides in this case were utterly contemptible. I would have found that Gawker invaded Hogan's privacy and awarded Hogan one dollar in damages, leaving everyone unhappy but the lawyers. Invasion of privacy, despite its questionable origins, is now generally recognized as a valid tort and outside of the protections of the First Amendment. No new precedent is being set here.

tptacek 11y ago
I don't think Bollea is a particularly good person, but I'm not clear on how his conduct in this controversy was "contemptible". For the 1A concern here, consider the Anthony Weiner case, in which indisputably private photos of Weiner were also published. I don't like that they were (I think he could have been just as effectively ejected from public life with good writing) but it's concerning to think that he'd have a tort hammer to swing to keep the story from coming out at all.
- fweespee_ch 11y ago
  Wasn't Anthony Weiner cover in the pictures the media published [i.e. boxers]? The line should be drawn at pornography/actual nudity being published without people's consent. Good writing is sufficient to convey the message.
- koolba 11y ago
  In the Wiener case he was sending the pictures of his crotch via SMS. There's no expectation of privacy from content that you've shared willingly, no matter how perverted the content.
  - abiox 11y ago
    if someone decides to sms bank account info to their spouse, is it then appropriate that their account info is published, because they have no expectation of privacy?
    - koolba 11y ago

danso 11y ago

I've long stopped reading Gawker for serious news or even entertainment...but I'm going to miss it as it is possibly the only independent online media outlet that actually made a profit. BuzzFeed might make a profit but NBC(Comcast) owns $200M of it [1]. Vox, too, got $200M from NBC [2]. Vice, as far as anyone can tell, is not near profitability (it just started its own TV channel), and has $400M from Disney [3]...and everyone else that is not a traditional news organization is not really on the radar for long-term viability. What's sad is that this was pretty much an unforced error. They already got plenty of page views from the post that described seeing the tape. The editor who made the decision is no longer even there and failed at his own online media startup. What shouldn't be overlooked is how much Gawker invested in its own content-management system, Kinja...the estimates are as high as $20 million for what is literally a glorified, multi-site commenting system [4]. Very few online organizations could survive that kind of sunk investment...Gawker's editorial bent was such that it would post the Hogan tape just for the hell of it rather than to make pageview profit...but Gawker pretty much lost all of its great writers and reporters over the past two years, including Adrian Chen (who now seems to regularly turn huge features at the NYT and the New Yorker) and Nitasha Tiku. I'm going to miss Deadspin especially. Sports news and entertainment was already monopolized by ESPN/Disney...we don't even have Grantland anymore. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/18/buzzfeed-nbcuniversal/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/18/buzzfeed-nbcuniversal/ [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/business/media/nbcuniversal-invests-200-million-in-vox-media.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/business/media/nbcuniversa... [3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-08/disney-said-to-double-investment-in-vice-media-to-400-million http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-08/disney-sai... [4] http://digiday.com/publishers/gawkers-kinja-retreat-shows-false-hope-in-publishers-licensing-tech/ http://digiday.com/publishers/gawkers-kinja-retreat-shows-fa...

jewbacca 11y ago
re Grantland: I'm not sure if this news has circulated widely beyond people who listen to his podcast[0], but Bill Simmons (founder of Grantland, creator of '30 for 30'; fired by ESPN/Disney last year after criticizing Roger Goodell) has hired the core of Grantland's former writers, editors and staff, to start 'The Ringer': http://theringer.com http://theringer.com Currently half-launched as an email newsletter, presumably while the infrastructure for a proper website is being developed. If Deadspin does indeed shut down after this (... though I think the people in this discussion are taking this as far more of a given than it is), then there will be a massive hole in this side of independent sports media, that The Ringer would be a top contender for filling. -- [0] http://thebillsimmonspodcast.tumblr.com/tagged/Bill-Simmons http://thebillsimmonspodcast.tumblr.com/tagged/Bill-Simmons

Trisell 11y ago

I agree that we live in a country With a constitution that gives us free speech, but while we have the right to say something, that doesn't relieve us of the responsibility of what we say. Gawker had every right to post this video, they also now have the full responsibility for the consequences. This case has established that you can still post sex tapes, but you now run the very real risk of loosing a lot in doing that. This court case doesn't say you can't, it just says that doing it could be prohibitively expensive to do it.

newjersey 11y ago
So obviously the next step is to form a shell company, put a sucker with no money in charge of it, incorporate that off shore, and host anything shady with them, not cooperate or collaborate with them wink wink (just like political candidates do not coordinate with superpacs wink wink). Everyone on the Internet from ACLU and EFF will rightly defend the right to link. Well, the sleazy tabloids will continue doing what they do. This is no win for privacy because it only protects those who are willing to go to court over this. Gawker is scum (particularly for doxxing people) but Hulk Hogan is no saint either. Edit: grammar and spelling
jevinskie 11y ago
Are rights that you have to pay a lot of money for really rights? See poll taxes. I'm not arguing either way about the current case in question.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ps4fanboy 11y ago

Gawker said it best, http://jezebel.com/5985635/an-idiots-guide-to-free-speech http://jezebel.com/5985635/an-idiots-guide-to-free-speech

skuhn 11y ago

Putting aside the matter of case itself, I'm getting a lot of schadenfreude out of watching Gawker fail to hold itself to the same standards it keeps for everyone else. As of now, two plus hours after TechCrunch [1], BBC [2], Recode [3], CNN [4], Buzzfeed [5], HN [6], Ars Technica [7], Wired [8], Slate [9] and countless other sites have all published articles about the verdict, Gawker's site is silent on the topic. And this comes after they've done daily articles throughout the trial, but now the pill is apparently too bitter to swallow. I don't think that being first is always best, but Gawker sure seemed to think so up until now. Apparently reveling in public about their own misfortune is finally the bridge too far. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/18/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115m-in-sex-tape-lawsuit-against-gawker/ http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/18/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115m... [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35849140 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35849140 [3] http://recode.net/2016/03/18/florida-jury-hands-hulk-hogan-a-115-million-victory-in-the-gawker-sex-tape-trial/ http://recode.net/2016/03/18/florida-jury-hands-hulk-hogan-a... [4] http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/18/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-jury-deliberations/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/18/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-jury... [5] http://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorgantopoulos/hulk-hogan-gawker-sex-tape-lawsuit-verdict#.qlXQeygRm http://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorgantopoulos/hulk-hogan-ga... [6] right here! [7] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/115-million-verdict-in-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-lawsuit-could-wipe-out-gawker/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/115-million-verdi... [8] http://www.wired.com/2016/03/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115-million-gawker-sex-tape-post/ http://www.wired.com/2016/03/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115-mill... [9] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/18/jury_awards_hulk_hogan_115_million_in_gawker_suit_punitive_damages_still.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/18/jury_award...

crikli 11y ago

Yeah, fuck Gawker (and Deadspin too, for that matter) but if this means the death of Jalopnik that's going to free up at least an hour of my day. :(

spriggan3 11y ago

So I see a lot of journalists on twitter defending Gawker. In my opinion Gawker is making journalists look bad at first place. I believe in press freedom but is "revenge porn" freedom of press ? If an unknown party leaked that sex tape, most journalists would condemn that and not label it "freedom of speech" so why the double standard ?

rodgerd 11y ago
Well, the Gawker empire already answered that question: they were highly critical of Reddit for hosting /r/fappening (rightly so, in my opinion), so it's more than a little rank to do an about face on this. I certainly agree that it's difficult to see anything resembling a meaningful public interest in publishing the tapes - I'm surprised but pleased to see that the US courts didn't do their normal "you're a public figure so you have no rights" as tends to be the case with defamation or privacy cases.
mc32 11y ago
Probably because they feel like they have to close ranks and defend a profession they see as being maligned. For them there is no grey, only black and white. All or nothing. For many other people there are degrees of freedom and rights. Their fear is that if they concede on this point, what else will they have to concede and will their profession back them when they are in the same position, but for more noble reasons. Self preservation and principle. They'd also get some peer pressure in the form of ostracism for breaking with the standard professional stance on the question.
- clevernickname 11y ago
  Being maligned by whom? "Journalists" get to control the narrative on literally any topic they choose. They had to fuck up really hard to get the rest of the press to report against them, and even then this case isn't receiving anywhere near the coverage it deserves.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    And breaking ranks on an issue like this could be the mess up that gets the rest of the press to report against them in the future...

tdurden 11y ago

I am sure Gawker didn't help their case with jurors when they said they would only draw a line at posting a sex tape of a four year old [1]. If they did have a chance of winning this case, they totally shot themselves in the foot with their testimony. [1] http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-tape-of-a-4-year-old/ http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-tape-...

themartorana 11y ago
I'm pretty sure we can all agree he was being sarcastic and flippant after hours of being on the stand. I'm not making excuses, but the NY Post loves them a way-skewed sensational headline that isn't so grounded in reality.
- tdurden 11y ago
  Totally agree on both points - but those kind of comments aren't going to score points with the jurors and influence the case.
- Crito 11y ago
  Of course it was a joke. But what sort of person, in that sort of situation, makes a joke like that? Forget the NYP completely and watch the video of how it played out on court. He comes off as a complete piece of shit.
  - skuhn 11y ago
    That one quip really embodies the entire case against Gawker I think. Daulerio was found personally liable as part of this verdict, and he had to know what the stakes were when he testified. By making himself look callous, unsympathic and irresponsible just to satisfy a fleeting desire to be sardonic he did himself zero favors with the jury. It's not about scoring a zinger against the opposing counsel. It's about putting across your narrative with the jury. I highly doubt Daulerio's legal counsel thought that narrative should be that he's just a grade-A asshole. No surprise that someone who couldn't keep it together when it really mattered to him in a deeply personal way can't be trusted to maintain journalistic integrity during the day-to-day operations of a site.

gregpilling 11y ago

So let's see. Hulk Hogan is worth $25M according to the interwebs. His reputation is in tatters for the video of him doing something he did. So he gets awarded almost 5 times as much for lost earnings, as he is worth total? Of course we all know this will go to appeal, where the real fate will be decided. Gawker does not have 115M to pay, and Hulk is not likely to find himself 5x richer. The real question is where does the First Amendment end up with this ruling? That is the change (or not) that would matter most to the average citizen.

nedwin 11y ago
If Hulk is worth $25m and had his reputation heavily tarnished that effects his future earnings potential. Was he likely to make $115m over the rest of his life? We'll never know.
- skuhn 11y ago
  Only $55m of the amount decided thus far was due to perceived economic damage. Also, punitive damages will be decided next week, and I fully expect they will be quite high given the way Gawker has presented themselves and the internal workings that have been shown in court. The economic damages are perhaps on the high side, but considering all of the ways Hogan has been able to license his brand up to this point -- and that those avenues are likely no longer open to him or at least greatly reduced -- it isn't out of the question that he could have earned that amount over the next 20 years.
  - biot 11y ago
    And not just for his lifetime, but also that of his estate once he passes. Hulk Hogan is, at this point, a brand with merchandise, video rights, and so on.
themartorana 11y ago
I'm personally not worried about the 1st. I'm personally not a lawyer either, so there's that... Ya know how if you buy a car second hand, and it turns out the car is stolen, you have to give it back, even if you bought it honestly? This feels similar to me. He never gave consent and had a reasonable expectation of privacy. While you can't give him back his privacy here, the video never existed in a public domain sans-crime, so it's publishing (much like your ownership and monetary outlay) is secondary. Except that here, Gawker was a party to the crime. For me, the 1st doesn't trump privacy. I have no doubt others feel differently.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

nradov 11y ago

Most of Gawker is terrible, but if the company goes down I hope Jalopnik survives in some form. They write good articles about cars and racing, and appear to maintain high ethical standards. http://jalopnik.com http://jalopnik.com

jessaustin 11y ago
I expect every "sub-property" will be sold to someone, although perhaps not for much money. Perhaps some other car-focused site will make the trustee an offer...

racl101 11y ago

Say your prayers! Take your vitamins! and bang your buddy's wife! And you too can make a sh!+load of money!

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

grghk 11y ago

On a side note: I can't find this tape anywhere inline. Quite the cleansing however they pulled that off.