Hulk Hogan awarded $115 million in sex-tape lawsuit against Gawker

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ipe-out-gawker

I think Gawker's defeat was inevitable, and it's undeniable that much of Gawker is kinda shit, but I believe this award was too high. I don't believe there is a legitimate public interest in seeing lurid sex-tapes of people who were filmed and/or exposed without their knowing consent, and I'm not sure how reasonable the concerns about restricting speech and having a chilling effect on reporting may be. Nevertheless, I'm having a hard time accepting this verdict as being reasonable.

I read somewhere that about 1/3 was for actual damage and 2/3 was punitive. Is that the current standard for this kind of lawsuit?

How do the damages compare to other celebrity sex-tape lawsuits?


And do you think Gawker would have gotten away with it if they'd just published the part of the tape with Hogan's fucked-up racist rant? :o

This isn't the end of the damages. They could reach as high as half a billion dollars. A lot of Gawker's defense included smart-ass, stuck-up, or down right offensive responses (like talking about the hypothetical sex tape of a 4 year old). On top of the fact that Gawker refused a court order to remove the sex tape via a twitter response that they still haven't removed. For good or bad, all that stays in the jury's and judge's mind when they start talking about guilt and damages.


I hope the final bill is just enough to shut them down. Gawker.com, Deadspin, Lifehacker, Gizmodo, Kotaku, Jalopnik, and Jezebel. A collection of some of the worst blogs on the net, and they just so happen to all belong to the same company.

Gawker's defense was unbelievably stupid. Apparently, the fact that Hogan talked about his sex life in public makes it ok to release a private sex tape of his. Imagine if someone tried to use the same argument against a female celebrity.

I think the majority of that number is because they initially refused a court order to take down the video. If not for that, they might have wound up only paying a few million. The number is much larger than I think Hogan really needs or deserves, but given Gawker's insistence on exacerbating the situation in flagrant disregard of the justice system, I can't fault it. Frankly, it's about time their policy of shit-stirring for clicks came back to bite them on the ass.

Can they afford that fine and stay in business ?

They said a while back that they had secured enough investment to survive a fine of the originally expected ~$100 million. No idea (doubtful IMO) if they could survive 5x that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Can they afford that fine and stay in business ?

---

http://fortune.com/2016/01/20/gawker-funding/

Quote:

---

The deal still has to be approved by shareholders, but that shouldn’t be a problem, since Denton and senior staff (both current and former) are estimated to control more than 95% of Gawker. According to one recent report, Denton personally controls 68% of the company, which is estimated to be worth between $300 million and $400 million.

The Gawker founder admitted in an internal memo—a memo that was almost immediately leaked to multiple outlets, in typical Gawker fashion—that the company needs the investment to bulk up its war-chest because of an ongoing defamation lawsuit by former wrestling star Hulk Hogan.

---

The jury tacked on another $25 million, $10 million of which must be personally paid by the Gawker media founder, and $100,000 by the editor of the article (who has a net worth of $0).

So it looks like Gawker is going to survive :(

Twitter Link

There's something wrong -- with our society -- when a "public figure" can use the judicial system to win multi-million dollar law suits based on liable, or invasion of privacy, but most rape victims don't call the police, because they don't have a public defender willing to prosecute.

And thousands of rape kits either haven't been processed, or can't be used as evidence because they've been rotting in police storage. And there's a statute of limitations on rape. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

because they don't have a public defender willing to prosecute. :(

---

What... do you know what a public defender does? Hint - look at the word really closely.

I stopped reading Gawker this past summer when they were approached by an escort who tried to blackmail a likely-closeted publishing executive. The executive wasn't a public figure, and the logic of the post was just exemplary of Gawker's devolution into angsty malicious quasi class-warfare.

That said, I'm not sure this sets a good precedent here. Unless Hogan was going to claim copyright of the video, he was in someone else's home with someone else's wife. And there seems to be a chance he may have known he was being filmed. Coupled with his frequent public statements about his sex life, I'm sympathetic to the case that there may be a legitimate -- if totally crass and awful -- public interest here.

Where I think Gawker erred is in just putting the thing up and not doing any reporting to establish how this was possibly in the public interest. EG by contacting Hogan for a comment, contacting the wife, contacting people who may be aware of a relationship.

But ultimately I think the people for Hogan to sue are the people who taped him and probably leaked the video in some way. And until that chain of events is examined, I strongly hesitate to agree that Gawker should pay a nuclear sum of money in a civil case versus the people who made/disseminated the tape.

Thing is, you can't touch Bubba. The dude was just in a lawsuit and setup up the other party's lawyer to get hit with a DUI, then ruined the lives of everyone involved in that setup. He has a literal army of supporters. He got caught tampering with ratings and walked away as if nothing happened. He slaughtered a pig live on the air a few years back and on the air he remains.


Not that I agree with your ridiculous suggestion that talking about your sex life somehow makes all of it a public interest. That kind of thinking would have made thefappening acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I stopped reading Gawker this past summer when they were approached by an escort who tried to blackmail a likely-closeted publishing executive. The executive wasn't a public figure, and the logic of the post was just exemplary of Gawker's devolution into angsty malicious quasi class-warfare.

That said, I'm not sure this sets a good precedent here. Unless Hogan was going to claim copyright of the video, he was in someone else's home with someone else's wife. And there seems to be a chance he may have known he was being filmed. Coupled with his frequent public statements about his sex life, I'm sympathetic to the case that there may be a legitimate -- if totally crass and awful -- public interest here.

Where I think Gawker erred is in just putting the thing up and not doing any reporting to establish how this was possibly in the public interest. EG by contacting Hogan for a comment, contacting the wife, contacting people who may be aware of a relationship.

But ultimately I think the people for Hogan to sue are the people who taped him and probably leaked the video in some way. And until that chain of events is examined, I strongly hesitate to agree that Gawker should pay a nuclear sum of money in a civil case versus the people who made/disseminated the tape.

---

The direct defiance of the court order that Wraith posted is probably the issue. I also don't think a private home should be considered public interest - that's pretty dumb. You have an expectation of privacy, do you really think it should be legal to set up hidden cameras prior to sex without the other parties knowledge and consent? The fact that the victim is famous should mean squat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

There's something wrong -- with our society -- when a "public figure" can use the judicial system to win multi-million dollar law suits based on liable, or invasion of privacy, but most rape victims don't call the police, because they don't have a public defender willing to prosecute.

And thousands of rape kits either haven't been processed, or can't be used as evidence because they've been rotting in police storage. And there's a statute of limitations on rape. :(

---

I laughed out loud at this.

The next time I'm being accused of a crime, I'm going to find the world's highest paid prosecutor to defend my case. Hopefully they can put the public defender who is trying to put me in jail to shame.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36395954

And now Gawker is telling the gay executive it outed that he shouldn't be angry at that act. Who the hell is running this company? The Trump of Silicon Valley?

Judge ruled against gawkers attempts to see just how much funding that guy was providing and against gawkers first attempt to reduce damages. So they are a little butthurt today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36395954

And now Gawker is telling the gay executive it outed that he shouldn't be angry at that act. Who the hell is running this company? The Trump of Silicon Valley?

---

Wasn't he not even gay?

edit: Wait, I think I'm thinking of a different gay executive they outed.

Gawker has filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy.


Last day of public school around here and another nail in gawker's coffin. fuck yeah its a good day.

Does anyone actually support them? They've somehow managed to make Hulk Hogan look sympathetic, and that's quite a feat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36395954

And now Gawker is telling the gay executive it outed that he shouldn't be angry at that act. Who the hell is running this company? The Trump of Silicon Valley?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

Wasn't he not even gay?

edit: Wait, I think I'm thinking of a different gay executive they outed.

---

There are two, one from Conde Nast last summer (whose sexuality hasn't been confirmed) and Peter Thiel in 2007.

I'm highly conflicted about this. I despise the editorial quality and ethics of Gawker, but I don't like the precedent being set that a publication can't publish something that isn't libelous. I haven't had time to dig-in to the legal theatrics of this.

Also not quite sure what legal fuckery Nick Denton is pulling.

You don't like the precedent of a publication not being allowed to publish secretly filmed sex tapes of others? :bulb:

It's not clear if it secretly filmed. But more generally, are we really going to argue that one can possess and suppress any information that leaves your home or place of business? If that's the case, we should shut down all publications that published Panama Papers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

If that's the case, we should shut down all publications that published Panama Papers.

---

The lawsuits are coming fast and furious, arrests have been made. But I find it disheartening that you can't see the line between shit the paparazzi wouldn't even get away with and possible public interest large scale legal fuckery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

It's not clear if it secretly filmed. But more generally, are we really going to argue that one can possess and suppress any information that leaves your home or place of business? If that's the case, we should shut down all publications that published Panama Papers.

---

Over here judges balance the breach of privacy against public interest. There is a public interest in the Panama papers, but I'll admit i not sure of all names of individuals who kept money offshore should be published. Of course for example politicians should be as in their case it is in the public interest.

By the way, for celebrities they do set the bar lower, since they sought out fame in the first place, so reporting that he cheated would probably be okay. Publishing the actual sextape is a much bigger breach of privacy though and adds pretty much nothing for the public interest, because they'd know exactly the same thing, i.e. he had sex with that woman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Over here judges balance the breach of privacy against public interest. There is a public interest in the Panama papers, but I'll admit i not sure of all names of individuals who kept money offshore should be published. Of course for example politicians should be as in their case it is in the public interest.

By the way, for celebrities they do set the bar lower, since they sought out fame in the first place, so reporting that he cheated would probably be okay. Publishing the actual sextape is a much bigger breach of privacy though and adds pretty much nothing for the public interest, because they'd know exactly the same thing, i.e. he had sex with that woman.

---

And yet there have been tons of celebrity sex tapes. Sure, many of them have been stunts in collaboration with a distributor. But not all of them. The practicalities of suppressing information (especially in this day and age) are virtually impossible, and it's silly to prosecute one particular organization with publishing what is so easily published.

BTW I don't think it's ethical what Gawker did. What I object-to is the notion that courts should police the publication of something easily obtainable and distributable. That's "right to be forgotten" nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

And yet there have been tons of celebrity sex tapes. Sure, many of them have been stunts in collaboration with a distributor. But not all of them. The practicalities of suppressing information (especially in this day and age) are virtually impossible, and it's silly to prosecute one particular organization with publishing what is so easily published.

BTW I don't think it's ethical what Gawker did. What I object-to is the notion that courts should police the publication of something easily obtainable and distributable. That's "right to be forgotten" nonsense.

---

The courts didn't, really. The one part that I consider to be the courts policing, issuing a take-down order, was completely unobjectionable. Pretty much routine, in fact, even in these days in which you claim suppressing information is virtually impossible. Since Gawker immediately and transparently circumvented that injunction, they immediately jettisoned any right to object to the community-policing which is what lawsuits like this really are. No one prosecuted Gawker, I might add. This was a civil lawsuit, a dispute between two private parties.

This isn't "right to be forgotten nonsense." Being filmed in the most private cirumstances against your will is about as purely obvious a reasonable violation to right of privacy that you can get. No one tries to fight cease-and-desists on topics like this because it is generally acknowledged that there's just no winning. Except Gawker did try to fight. And they didn't win. The fact that you can't keep it from popping up again from fresh sites does not mean nor should it mean that any attempt to issue cease-and-desists should be dumped and we should scrap any trace to a right of privacy.

Gawker.com is supposedly closing down for good next week. Of course they are still playing the victim. Stupid sick twats.

The rest of the group is continuing though.