kjh

Again, it's debatable if this is covered by the first amendment since you're talking about a site distributing an unknowingly filmed sex tape without the guy's consent. This isn't just some tabloid digging up celebrity dirt. It's more like that deal when a bunch of celebrities got their iPhones hacked and had nudes distributed online, and even Gawker's own sites were against it. No matter how you look at it, Gawker fucked up by posting clips from the tape. I agree that it's a grey area, but Judge Pamela Campbell (who is clearly an arch conservative) is the only one who agreed to the injunction to take the video down. Two other Floridian judges ruled it was protected by the First Amendment (including the appeals court). That doesn't bode well for Hogan in the end game. Interpretation of the current law seems to be in Gawker's favour, especially when the appeals court is likely to consider elements of the case that weren't ruled admissible by the jury (that Hogan's emotional distress was over another sex tape having racial slurs on it, all key witnesses either obviously perjuring themselves at some point or being deceptive, at the very least, etc).

Even if that means erroneously interpreting the law, Parv?

I'm not sure how the award has been structured helps Hogan much at all. Hogan didn't prove any concrete economic injuries. He did suffer emotional distress, but I'm not sure the symptoms he suffered were worth $60 million. Larger punitive damages could certainly have been justified, but as the jury were instructed that they couldn't bankrupt the defendants, they didn't have much wiggle room left to award anything higher.

I think the "they had it coming anyway" is a dangerous attitude when it comes to the application of law, which can lead to miscarriages of justice taking place. If "stronger regulation on the paparazzi portion of the media" is necessary in the United States then that really needs the law to be changed or a Supreme court ruling that clearly defines the limits of the First Amendment.

I think we're all in agreement that Daulerio's sarcasm was really dumb. However, it should be noted that in late 2013, when Daulerio's videotaped deposition took place, Gawker were probably unduly confident that this would never go to trial because they believed it would get dismissed on First Amendment grounds.

I'd think both would be brought into NXT rather than go straight to the main roster. NXT needs a constant influx of name indy talent if they are going to continue drawing on the road when their top stars get called up. They've already lost Sami Zayn and will likely lose one or two more after WrestleMania.

To be fair to Gawker, Judge Pamela Campbell clearly overstepped the mark when she ordered Gawker to "remove the written narrative describing the private sexual encounter, including the quotations from the private sexual encounter from websites and including Gawker.com," which is why they kept the post up but took down the video. A federal judge in Florida had already denied Hogan's injunction and Campbell's judgement was later overturned in the appeal courts, due to the First Amendment. I'd agree though that flipping the bird to the trial judge wasn't a smart strategy, but three years ago Gawker clearly believed this was never going to trial (and really who could blame them if they knew at that point there was another sex tape being shopped around with Hogan using racial slurs). Hogan's lawyers also misrepresented their case at trial claiming that they had never tried to take the article itself down and were only bothered about the video being published rather than the written narrative of the encounter when their original lawsuit specifically asked for the article to be taken down too.

The award was also influenced by dog whistling by the judge during jury selection (going off off on a tangent about the quality of online journalism today whilst telling the jury pool to avoid news coverage of the case) and the direction she gave to jurors before deliberations: Emphasis mine. It's also worth noting that the judge accepted a clearly inappropriate question submitted by a juror about whether Emma Carmichael had intimate relations with Nick Denton or A.J. Daulerio. Whatever you think of Gawker, it's hard to believe that they had a genuinely fair trial. It certainly wasn't a great day for the American justice system.

The irony is that we only know that Hogan is a racist, homophobic twat is because he went all the way with this lawsuit. I'm still not sure that was the smart play if Gawker was willing to offer him a decent settlement to go away. There's still a very good shot that he ends up with nothing (the appeals court generally has been much more sympathetic to Gawker's arguments, pretty much overturning every ruling of Judge Pamela Campbell's in favour of Hogan, who clearly has acted in a very partisan fashion, as was federal court before he moved his lawsuit to state court), or so little that it wasn't worth the public embarrassment that came from pursuing the litigation. I'd be much more "Yay for Hogan" if he hadn't settled with Bubba in return for $5,000 and help with the Gawker lawsuit, who comes off as a much greater sleazebag than anybody on the Gawker side with the possible exception of A.J. Daulerio.

Worth noting that the day before the Montreal Screwjob, according to Meltzer's reporting at the time: "At about the same time the WWF braintrust was in Montreal one day early. Vince McMahon held a meeting at the hotel with Jim Ross, Jim Cornette, Pat Patterson and Michaels. Reports are that at least two of the aforementioned names looked extremely uncomfortable leaving the meeting." It's hard to imagine that those in the meeting weren't aware of what was to transpire the next day and that whomever came up with the Sharpshooter spot was at that meeting.

Dave seems to me to be someone that when he makes a promise he keeps it, so I'm not sure your theory is correct, unless the person who swore him to secrecy allows him to speak about the subject now. I will say that there are other elements to the Shane McMahon story that Dave didn't go into much detail when he came back. The level of heat between Triple H and Shane in the past, why Hunter dislikes Shane, etc.

Yeah, the most logical conclusion to Dave's throwaway line is that Shane attempted to find investors to buy Vince out or a bigger business to forcibly takeover the company.

Dave Meltzer wrote upon Shane's return: "Vince had said that nobody was going to take his spot before he dies, unless they could be so ruthless to figuratively stab him in the gut and steal it. Shane attempted to take his advice, but it didn’t work out." Thinking logically about a smooth succession doesn't make sense with an owner that thinks that way. I'm sure there was an element of "let's see how Hunter reacts to this", even though it made sense for (short-term) business too. Another test for Hunter to pass, whilst also providing Vince with some perverse pleasure.

Eddie Guerrero vs 2 Cold Scorpio - ECW TV Title http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xe64pw_eddie-guerrero-vs-2-cold-scorpio-ec_sportThis match got a lot of praise at the time, IIRC.

Batista was a big star on Smackdown, but he never drew as well as he did in the program with Triple H and I think part of that was being moved brands. I don't think they maximised his potential, although you're right that he still had tremendous value to the company in the right programs. The manner in which Shane left WWE wasn't amicable. Shane wanted to be the next Vince, not the next Linda, and grew increasingly frustrated when he realised that he was being passed over for that position. Even today, Shane's return just looks to be a short-term favour for his father who had ran out of options for The Undertaker's opponent at WrestleMania, rather than any indication that he's being brought back into the corporate fold. Of course, that might eventually change. But clearly he wasn't written into any secession plans while he was persona non grata. You have to really question whether Triple H & Stephanie want that at all changed.

Wait... what? What has Hunter done for business that is so smart for the good of business? Putting over Daniel Bryan and Batista. Neither of those moves really helped business much. Whatever momentum Bryan got by beating Hunter was derailed by being immediately side-drained into a secondary program with Kane, whilst he took top billing by feuding with The Shield. Similarly, whatever momentum Batista got was derailed by being demoted to Smackdown, a political hornets nest for him, as he had slagged the brand off in the media a few months prior. This wasn't quite as egregious as Hulk Hogan putting over Goldberg and still hogging the top spot for himself, but similar in spirit. Regarding WWE stockholders seeing Shane McMahon as someone they would be comfortable with running the business end of the company, I just don't see it. Although he has experience running a business now (You On Demand), his company never got off the ground, has bled money for years and actually revenue significantly declined under his watch. I do think it will be Triple H/Stephanie in charge with them delegating most of the financial responsibilities to Barrios/Wilson or their own outside hires. Shane I think will be a silent partner like his mother has been since moving into politics.

Sean Waltman's story is hard to believe as it was told. Triple H might have lobbied hard for the Reigns match once Seth was injured though.

Definitely. It's what they did in 2006 with Cena in Reigns' current position. Cena was just much better equipped and better established to handle the blowback. Plus, the company a decade ago at least had some strong heels being groomed for Cena to work with after the Triple H program was over.

It's an odd argument by Dave. Trying to get cheers when you are supposed to be the villain and your opponent is supposed to be the hero is by definition sabotage if you take the meaning to be "any undermining of a cause". Here the cause is to make Roman Reigns the next Hogan/Austin/Cena. How does Triple H's actions help that cause? There's trying to get yourself over, then there's trying to get yourself over at the detriment of your opponent. Clearly this veered into the latter category. It may not be an outright burial, but shows that Hunter's priorities are not where they need to be.

I think it would be wrong to call developmental / talent relations a failing division when Triple H formally took charge, although it did have a turbulent history. Daniel Bryan, Seth Rollins, Dean Ambrose, Roman Reigns, Alberto Del Rio, Cesaro, Sheamus, Wade Barrett, Ryback, etc. were all signed and developed in FCW before he took over. Not sure who to credit with that success though. It's possible that Triple H was already heavily involved in the talent acquisition process at that stage. It's also true that when someone new takes power they often clean house. Plus Triple H does deserve a lot of credit for taking things to the next level with the establishment of the WWE Performance Centre and turning developmental into a hot brand. That said, the Bill DeMott scandal was so predictable and handled so badly internally that it was arguably a bigger blunder than anything Laurinaitis ever did. The same can be argued about Alberto Del Rio's firing.

Regarding Laurinaitis being pushed out by Triple H, it wasn't just that, he gutted the whole talent relations department and did the same in developmental, replacing all the key people with his own hires. That's his MO. That's a mixture of both good and bad, as clearly Hunter picked some people wisely (William Regal has obviously been a hugely important influence in widening WWE's search for talent and being less closed minded), while also making his own blunders (making Bill Demott WWE's head trainer was a disaster waiting to happen and he didn't disappoint). I don't think it's making a jump that he'll do exactly the same with other departments when Vince is out of the picture, particularly someone who if the whispers are true he dislikes. Regarding why Triple H/Stephanie don't use their influence with Vince to force Kevin Dunn out, I don't think it's that easy, because Dunn is so far up the corporate food chain today. He's EVP of Television Production. They'd have to pay a lot of money to break Dunn's contract. Regarding Dylan's #PoliticalHit theory, there was a very interesting paragraph in this week's Observer: In that context, Vince likely welcomes all the infighting and intrigue. He doesn't want to give Triple H power on a plate, he wants him to grab it for himself.

Hard to think that there isn't a political hit out with stories about Reigns using blood capsules and posting obviously fake surgery pics. Maybe Vince doesn't understand how that would play in hardcore fan circles, but Triple H should.

I'm not sure Cena was Vince's fourth pick, as clearly Batista/Orton were Triple H's picks as future opponents that he could groom for programs down the line with rather than people to genuinely pass the torch to. It's right that Cena was initially a Heyman pet project that I believe Triple H quickly nixed, then became Stephanie's pet project when she heard him rapping on a bus (think of the irony of that), but it didn't take too long for Vince to be fully behind the push. Really, Vince's guy from the spring of 2001 until Cena overtook him was Triple H. He was the top star of the "A" brand, Monday Night Raw. Everything revolved around him. There was no effort to replace him during that time, as he either demolished everyone in his path or those he didn't (Lesnar, Batista) were quickly demoted to Smackdown so he could have fresh meat to consume.

The other moving part here is Brock Lesnar/Paul Heyman and how they fit in. Last year's WrestleMania was a perfect storm, as Lesnar feigned WWE into believing he would jump ship to UFC in order to get a better deal. He had also essentially turned himself babyface with the Suplex City gimmick, likely eyeing the top babyface spot for himself. Vince probably thought 'holy shit, I can't beat the guy now', which allowed Seth Rollins to backdoor his way into the title. I don't think Rollins winning at WM was as much a sign of Vince losing faith in Reigns, more wanting to protect Lesnar due to his hefty price tag, but an unwillingness to go all the way with Lesnar due to his part-time status.

Some related "Political Hit" reading, that cover some of the games going on between Triple H and Kevin Dunn: Triple H vs. WWE Director Kevin Dunn: Battling over what's 'Best for Business' (June 16th, 2014): http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/2014/6/15/5812772/triple-h-vs-wwe-director-kevin-dunn-battling-over-whats-best-for Machiavellian forces within WWE want Kevin Owens to fail (July 21st, 2015): http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/2015/7/20/9007075/kevin-owens-machiavellian-forces-within-wwe-want-to-see-him-fail More on high WWE executive turnover: Vince McMahon's whimsical nature blamed (July 24th, 2015): http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/2015/7/23/9027377/more-on-high-wwe-executive-turnover-vince-mcmahon-whimsical-nature-blamed