5 ms·

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

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.
spoiledtechie 11y ago
Its about the First Amendment encroaching upon the right to privacy. Where is the line drawn. That was what this trial is sincerely about. Privacy outweighs the first amendment at this stage. But lets remember, that Gawker is a pretty far stretch to say they are living within the 1st amendment rights.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Where is that right to privacy codified in the US Constitution or law?
  - hga 11y ago
    It's in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitution (seriously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
eljimmy 11y ago
It wasn't just about earnings. $55 million was for economic injuries and $60 million for emotional distress.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  How do you find a number for emotional distress? I get the feeling numbers in US lawsuits are made up and adjusted for the receiver -- I.e you can sue McDonalds for a larger sum after burning on a cup of coffee than you can the coffee shop on the corner, despite your own costs/damages being the same? Isn't that using a lawsuit as a kind of punishment, something which should be reserved for a criminal case?
  - abiox 11y ago
    if/when mcdonalds gets dinged with amounts more suitable to a mom 'n pop shop, they give zero shits.
    - alkonaut 11y ago
      I'm aware. But if I sue someone it's to cover my damages, not damage the other party. If McD were found liable for causing injury you'd think someone in management would be held responsible in a criminal case and there is a risk of the individual and or the corporation being fined a huge amount by a criminal court. The difference is that a multi million fine would be awarded by a criminal court, since it is a punishment, and the money would go to the government and not to whoever got a hot coffee. It's perfectly fine if a small business would be fined 1% of their revenue, and McDonald's would be too. I know this is probably some quirk of the US legal system but I really don't understand the benefits of having civil courts dealing with punishments that seem arbitrarily set by one part in the case rather than by law.
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        ...to cover my damages, not damage the other party. If this were the normal thought process, vastly fewer lawsuits would ever be filed. Lots of things can happen to a plaintiff. Sure, she could win, in which case her attorneys' fees are typically subtracted from the damages. She could also lose, in which case she typically has to pay the attorneys. She could also lose in such a fashion that she could suffer other economic penalties as well. If compensation were the best possible outcome from a lawsuit, many potential plaintiffs would just go to Yelp with their complaint about McDonald's. Of course, that might be a better society in which to live, but it would be a very different society.
Veratyr 11y ago
My understanding was that the constitution was only relevant to government action. Since this is a civil lawsuit, the First Amendment should not be relevant, should it? It's like how the 2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms and the government can't take that away from you but a landlord can keep you from having a gun in your apartment. If this was a criminal case the First Amendment would be relevant (by my understanding) but since it's civil, it's irrelevant.
- icebraining 11y ago
  No, it's not irrelevant: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commonlaw.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commonl...
bogomipz 11y ago
Right because there's nothing more accurate than typing "what is ___ ____'s net worth" into a google search. You have no idea what his earning potential with WWF or anyone else that severed their association with him based on this.

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.

spoiledtechie 11y ago

Its about the First Amendment encroaching upon the right to privacy. Where is the line drawn. That was what this trial is sincerely about. Privacy outweighs the first amendment at this stage. But lets remember, that Gawker is a pretty far stretch to say they are living within the 1st amendment rights.

icebraining 11y ago
Where is that right to privacy codified in the US Constitution or law?
- hga 11y ago
  It's in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitution (seriously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

eljimmy 11y ago

It wasn't just about earnings. $55 million was for economic injuries and $60 million for emotional distress.

alkonaut 11y ago
How do you find a number for emotional distress? I get the feeling numbers in US lawsuits are made up and adjusted for the receiver -- I.e you can sue McDonalds for a larger sum after burning on a cup of coffee than you can the coffee shop on the corner, despite your own costs/damages being the same? Isn't that using a lawsuit as a kind of punishment, something which should be reserved for a criminal case?
- abiox 11y ago
  if/when mcdonalds gets dinged with amounts more suitable to a mom 'n pop shop, they give zero shits.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    I'm aware. But if I sue someone it's to cover my damages, not damage the other party. If McD were found liable for causing injury you'd think someone in management would be held responsible in a criminal case and there is a risk of the individual and or the corporation being fined a huge amount by a criminal court. The difference is that a multi million fine would be awarded by a criminal court, since it is a punishment, and the money would go to the government and not to whoever got a hot coffee. It's perfectly fine if a small business would be fined 1% of their revenue, and McDonald's would be too. I know this is probably some quirk of the US legal system but I really don't understand the benefits of having civil courts dealing with punishments that seem arbitrarily set by one part in the case rather than by law.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      ...to cover my damages, not damage the other party. If this were the normal thought process, vastly fewer lawsuits would ever be filed. Lots of things can happen to a plaintiff. Sure, she could win, in which case her attorneys' fees are typically subtracted from the damages. She could also lose, in which case she typically has to pay the attorneys. She could also lose in such a fashion that she could suffer other economic penalties as well. If compensation were the best possible outcome from a lawsuit, many potential plaintiffs would just go to Yelp with their complaint about McDonald's. Of course, that might be a better society in which to live, but it would be a very different society.

Veratyr 11y ago

My understanding was that the constitution was only relevant to government action. Since this is a civil lawsuit, the First Amendment should not be relevant, should it? It's like how the 2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms and the government can't take that away from you but a landlord can keep you from having a gun in your apartment. If this was a criminal case the First Amendment would be relevant (by my understanding) but since it's civil, it's irrelevant.

icebraining 11y ago
No, it's not irrelevant: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commonlaw.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commonl...

bogomipz 11y ago

Right because there's nothing more accurate than typing "what is ___ ____'s net worth" into a google search. You have no idea what his earning potential with WWF or anyone else that severed their association with him based on this.