3 ms·

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. G

by 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.

by Khaine 11y ago

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.