2 ms·
> 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 h
by 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 agoYou 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.