3 ms·

The $115m verdict seems excessive. It vastly exceeds the damage done by the offense and the benefits gained by the perpetrators.

brohee 11y ago
It's supposed to be punitive right?
- ksherlock 11y ago
  The $115 million is compensatory ($55 million for economic harm, $60 million for emotional distress). Punitive damages haven't been decided on yet.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
Khaine 11y ago
It takes into account that gawker ignored a court order and kept the video up1. They are absolute scum. And then to be such hypocrites about the fappening. Good riddance to such rubbish. 1 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...
- ikeboy 11y ago
  The post you link to says they took the video down, only leaving the post up. One would think someone would read posts before citing them as a source, and notice if it actually says the opposite.
  - Khaine 11y ago
    Its funny, because the wikipedia article says the opposite: In April 2013, Gawker wrote, "A judge told us to take down our Hulk Hogan sex tape post. We won't." It also stated that "we are refusing to comply" with the order of the circuit court judge. And so does the archived version of the page.
    - dalke 11y ago
      From April 27, 2013, http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/GAWKER-SAYS-NO-TO-COURT-ORDER-IN-HULK-HOGAN-SEX-TAPE-CASE-1333410 http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/GAWKER-SAYS-... : > A Pinellas County Judge, Pamela A.M. Campbell issued an order Wednesday directing Gawker to remove a video of Hogan (real name Terry Bollea) purportedly having sex with the ex-wife of a disc jockey named "Bubba the Love Sponge" Clem, as well as a 1,400-word narrative about the tape and hundreds of user-submitted comments. > The site did take down the video, but the narrative and comments remain on the site with the website's attorney, Gregg Thomas saying the order to remove that material infringes on the website's First Amendment rights. So, yes, the video was taken down. No, the post concerning the video was not, despite the court order to do so. I believe "Hulk Hogan sex tape post" refers to the latter commentary post, not the actual video.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >A lawful order from a circuit court judge is a serious thing. While we vehemently disagree with Campbell's order with respect to the video itself, we have chosen to take it down pending our appeal. From your own link, which you clearly didn't bother to read even after I pointed out that it contradicts what you said.
mikearagua 11y ago
I'll allow it.
forgetsusername 11y ago
>It vastly exceeds the damage done by the offense What is your calculus? "Hulk Hogan" is a brand that has been around for almost 40 years. The release of the video ruined it; he was fired from the WWE. I don't know what the real number is, but significant value was lost.
- mcguire 11y ago
  According to the article, the portion of the tape that caused his firing was not included in the Gawker article. "Bollea's reputation took a huge hit last year, and he got fired from his job at World Wrestling Entertainment. That outcome wasn't fallout from the Gawker article, however. In a section of the sex tape that could be described as "pillow talk" (which wasn't published by Gawker), Bollea went on a racist diatribe. He repeatedly used the N-word and other racial insults, expressing disappointment that his daughter was in a relationship with a black man. The racial epithets were leaked by other news sites, including Radar Online and the National Enquirer."
Eric_WVGG 11y ago
What I'd like to know is, would a sum like that be handed to someone who wasn't a celebrity? Seems a little plutocratic to me. [edit] Another comment here splits the judgement into $50m economic harm and $65m emotional distress. I'm not arguing against the first figure, obviously a celebrity has more money and earning potential that is capable of being harmed. But I don't think they're capable of being distressed any more than the next person.
- rayiner 11y ago
  A celebreity's sex tape is going to get much wider viewing than some random person's. Your typical person wouldn't be walking down the street and have everyone recognize them and think of their sex tape even if it was on the Internet.

brohee 11y ago

It's supposed to be punitive right?

ksherlock 11y ago
The $115 million is compensatory ($55 million for economic harm, $60 million for emotional distress). Punitive damages haven't been decided on yet.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

Khaine 11y ago

It takes into account that gawker ignored a court order and kept the video up1. They are absolute scum. And then to be such hypocrites about the fappening. Good riddance to such rubbish. 1 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...

ikeboy 11y ago
The post you link to says they took the video down, only leaving the post up. One would think someone would read posts before citing them as a source, and notice if it actually says the opposite.
- Khaine 11y ago
  Its funny, because the wikipedia article says the opposite: In April 2013, Gawker wrote, "A judge told us to take down our Hulk Hogan sex tape post. We won't." It also stated that "we are refusing to comply" with the order of the circuit court judge. And so does the archived version of the page.
  - dalke 11y ago
    From April 27, 2013, http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/GAWKER-SAYS-NO-TO-COURT-ORDER-IN-HULK-HOGAN-SEX-TAPE-CASE-1333410 http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/GAWKER-SAYS-... : > A Pinellas County Judge, Pamela A.M. Campbell issued an order Wednesday directing Gawker to remove a video of Hogan (real name Terry Bollea) purportedly having sex with the ex-wife of a disc jockey named "Bubba the Love Sponge" Clem, as well as a 1,400-word narrative about the tape and hundreds of user-submitted comments. > The site did take down the video, but the narrative and comments remain on the site with the website's attorney, Gregg Thomas saying the order to remove that material infringes on the website's First Amendment rights. So, yes, the video was taken down. No, the post concerning the video was not, despite the court order to do so. I believe "Hulk Hogan sex tape post" refers to the latter commentary post, not the actual video.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    >A lawful order from a circuit court judge is a serious thing. While we vehemently disagree with Campbell's order with respect to the video itself, we have chosen to take it down pending our appeal. From your own link, which you clearly didn't bother to read even after I pointed out that it contradicts what you said.

mikearagua 11y ago

I'll allow it.

forgetsusername 11y ago

>It vastly exceeds the damage done by the offense What is your calculus? "Hulk Hogan" is a brand that has been around for almost 40 years. The release of the video ruined it; he was fired from the WWE. I don't know what the real number is, but significant value was lost.

mcguire 11y ago
According to the article, the portion of the tape that caused his firing was not included in the Gawker article. "Bollea's reputation took a huge hit last year, and he got fired from his job at World Wrestling Entertainment. That outcome wasn't fallout from the Gawker article, however. In a section of the sex tape that could be described as "pillow talk" (which wasn't published by Gawker), Bollea went on a racist diatribe. He repeatedly used the N-word and other racial insults, expressing disappointment that his daughter was in a relationship with a black man. The racial epithets were leaked by other news sites, including Radar Online and the National Enquirer."

Eric_WVGG 11y ago

What I'd like to know is, would a sum like that be handed to someone who wasn't a celebrity? Seems a little plutocratic to me. [edit] Another comment here splits the judgement into $50m economic harm and $65m emotional distress. I'm not arguing against the first figure, obviously a celebrity has more money and earning potential that is capable of being harmed. But I don't think they're capable of being distressed any more than the next person.

rayiner 11y ago
A celebreity's sex tape is going to get much wider viewing than some random person's. Your typical person wouldn't be walking down the street and have everyone recognize them and think of their sex tape even if it was on the Internet.