3 ms·

> I don't see anyone laughing or smiling in the clip around 1:25 in the video I linked and a court deposition is not a place one would normally tell jokes. I ce

by muglug 9y ago

> I don't see anyone laughing or smiling in the clip around 1:25 in the video I linked and a court deposition is not a place one would normally tell jokes. I certainly never joked back when I gave a deposition. That's you. I've given testimony in a grand jury about a serious crime, and I might have made a couple of off-hand jokes. People deal with the stress of such situations in different ways. > As I said, the merits of invasion of privacy stopped mattering at that point because they shot themselves in the foot with a bazooka. Not quite. The merits of invasion of privacy stopped mattering because the litigant was being secretly funded by a billionaire with essentially limitless resources, and a desire to crush Gawker. Without Thiel, Hogan would have gotten a few million dollars, the editor would have been fired, and this would remain a cautionary tale about how it's not cool to publish sex tapes of fading stars.

Natsu 9y ago
> I've given testimony in a grand jury about a serious crime, and I might have made a couple of off-hand jokes. People deal with the stress of such situations in different ways. Personal anecdotes are meaningless, but if you want to compare them, I've been a witness in a first degree murder trial, where I gave an interview to the police, a deposition, and then was examined and cross-examined on the stand. I was a teenager at the time. But I knew even then that cracking jokes in any of these was a bad idea. So, maybe you're like him enough to understand him, I don't know. I'd never joke about child pornography in court and I'm very probably incapable of understanding anyone who would. I see a straight face with no evidence of joking and anyone can watch the video to make up their own mind, I don't expect to change opinions here. I haven't heard what you see on his face or in his voice that leads you to think 'joke' and I certainly didn't hear anyone laugh, not even AJ himself. > Not quite. The merits of invasion of privacy stopped mattering because the litigant was being secretly funded by a billionaire with essentially limitless resources, and a desire to crush Gawker. No amount of funding by Thiel could cause Gawker to disobey a court order. Without contempt of court, and the terrible, terrible idea to "joke" with a straight face that they'd post sex tapes of anyone over 4, they might have survived. Gawker had competent legal representation and they had their day in court. Nobody but them chose to defy the court. > Without Thiel, Hogan would have gotten a few million dollars, the editor would have been fired, and this would remain a cautionary tale about how it's not cool to publish sex tapes of fading stars. This is an assumption for which you provide neither a rationale nor any evidence. Not even anecdata this time. It seems far more credible to me that not choosing to piss off the judge would've helped them avoid punitive damages. Also, they went to crowdfunding to try to revive the site, but failed miserably. So they had their day both in court and again in the court of public opinion. Both times, they were judged to be losers. They wanted to be above the law and they found out that they were not.
- muglug 9y ago
  > I see a straight face with no evidence of joking and anyone can watch the video to make up their own mind, I don't expect to change opinions here. I haven't heard what you see on his face or in his voice that leads you to think 'joke' and I certainly didn't hear anyone laugh, not even AJ himself. I don't know you, but I suspect you weren't a regular reader of Gawker and its writers' general brand of humour. > This is an assumption for which you provide neither a rationale nor any evidence Settlements are the norm in the US legal system. That's not anecdata. Furthermore, Gawker Media (and other similar outlets) have a history of paying out sums of money to avoid court battles. They were expecting that this would be no different, especially as Hulk Hogan didn't have the money to wage a lengthy legal fight. It's extraordinarily unlikely he would have gone to court had Thiel not promised to pay any and all legal bills.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    You make an excellent point here. I didn't realize that all this time, AJ was mocking the court and Hogan because he believed Hogan was too poor to access justice and because he thought Gawker was therefore above the law. I guess I'm just not able to understand people who joke about publishing child rape videos. So you're right, I did give AJ too much credit here. You're right to point out that his straight-faced joke was meant to show contempt both for the justice system and anyone too poor to access it. A contempt he paid quite dearly for in the judgement.

by muglug 9y ago

Natsu 9y ago

> I've given testimony in a grand jury about a serious crime, and I might have made a couple of off-hand jokes. People deal with the stress of such situations in different ways. Personal anecdotes are meaningless, but if you want to compare them, I've been a witness in a first degree murder trial, where I gave an interview to the police, a deposition, and then was examined and cross-examined on the stand. I was a teenager at the time. But I knew even then that cracking jokes in any of these was a bad idea. So, maybe you're like him enough to understand him, I don't know. I'd never joke about child pornography in court and I'm very probably incapable of understanding anyone who would. I see a straight face with no evidence of joking and anyone can watch the video to make up their own mind, I don't expect to change opinions here. I haven't heard what you see on his face or in his voice that leads you to think 'joke' and I certainly didn't hear anyone laugh, not even AJ himself. > Not quite. The merits of invasion of privacy stopped mattering because the litigant was being secretly funded by a billionaire with essentially limitless resources, and a desire to crush Gawker. No amount of funding by Thiel could cause Gawker to disobey a court order. Without contempt of court, and the terrible, terrible idea to "joke" with a straight face that they'd post sex tapes of anyone over 4, they might have survived. Gawker had competent legal representation and they had their day in court. Nobody but them chose to defy the court. > Without Thiel, Hogan would have gotten a few million dollars, the editor would have been fired, and this would remain a cautionary tale about how it's not cool to publish sex tapes of fading stars. This is an assumption for which you provide neither a rationale nor any evidence. Not even anecdata this time. It seems far more credible to me that not choosing to piss off the judge would've helped them avoid punitive damages. Also, they went to crowdfunding to try to revive the site, but failed miserably. So they had their day both in court and again in the court of public opinion. Both times, they were judged to be losers. They wanted to be above the law and they found out that they were not.

muglug 9y ago
> I see a straight face with no evidence of joking and anyone can watch the video to make up their own mind, I don't expect to change opinions here. I haven't heard what you see on his face or in his voice that leads you to think 'joke' and I certainly didn't hear anyone laugh, not even AJ himself. I don't know you, but I suspect you weren't a regular reader of Gawker and its writers' general brand of humour. > This is an assumption for which you provide neither a rationale nor any evidence Settlements are the norm in the US legal system. That's not anecdata. Furthermore, Gawker Media (and other similar outlets) have a history of paying out sums of money to avoid court battles. They were expecting that this would be no different, especially as Hulk Hogan didn't have the money to wage a lengthy legal fight. It's extraordinarily unlikely he would have gone to court had Thiel not promised to pay any and all legal bills.
- Natsu 9y ago
  You make an excellent point here. I didn't realize that all this time, AJ was mocking the court and Hogan because he believed Hogan was too poor to access justice and because he thought Gawker was therefore above the law. I guess I'm just not able to understand people who joke about publishing child rape videos. So you're right, I did give AJ too much credit here. You're right to point out that his straight-faced joke was meant to show contempt both for the justice system and anyone too poor to access it. A contempt he paid quite dearly for in the judgement.