kjh Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Yeah, in a perfect world, sure. But our legal system in this country is notoriously inefficient, biased, and inconsistent. So I'd much rather worry about all the innocent people railroaded by the system before we get around to caring about the obviously-guilty ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...TG Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 The jury just came down with punitive damages for Gawker - $25m, including $10m from Nick Denton personally, and $100k from AJ Daulerio. Â I'm certainly no legal expert, but everything I've read seems to indicate that the verdict is questionable at best. Even if it survives on appeal, the judgement will probably be reduced dramatically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judy Bagwell Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 what about the distress Gawker caused to the public by releasing a sex tape involving Hogan? how many eyeballs had to be bleached after viewing that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Gawker just seems nasty and spiteful, and the justice system should do all it can to crack down on this grubby vulturous form of "journalism". It is genuinely toxic and this is in a post-Murdoch scandal environment too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judy Bagwell Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Gawker just seems nasty and spiteful, and the justice system should do all it can to crack down on this grubby vulturous form of "journalism". It is genuinely toxic and this is in a post-Murdoch scandal environment too. leave grubby journalism to the Brits! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Even if that means erroneously interpreting the law, Parv? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Gawker just seems nasty and spiteful, and the justice system should do all it can to crack down on this grubby vulturous form of "journalism". It is genuinely toxic and this is in a post-Murdoch scandal environment too. Â there's a difference between "nasty and spiteful" and the kind of stuff we associate with the tabloids. it's not the law's place to prevent anyone from digging up 20-year-old dirt on Bill Cosby, as long as there's evidence for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Â Gawker just seems nasty and spiteful, and the justice system should do all it can to crack down on this grubby vulturous form of "journalism". It is genuinely toxic and this is in a post-Murdoch scandal environment too. Â there's a difference between "nasty and spiteful" and the kind of stuff we associate with the tabloids. it's not the law's place to prevent anyone from digging up 20-year-old dirt on Bill Cosby, as long as there's evidence for it. The case is about privacy not about finding evidence for criminal activity. Â Did Hulk Hogan do anything illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxnj Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 I hope that in the bigger picture this means the beginning of the collapse of the tabloid culture that exists now. It probably won't, but seeing every new edition of the National Enquirer basically turning itself into a Trump ad is more and more disgusting to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016  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.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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 I hope that in the bigger picture this means the beginning of the collapse of the tabloid culture that exists now. It probably won't, but seeing every new edition of the National Enquirer basically turning itself into a Trump ad is more and more disgusting to me. Ah, that's just the people who run the Enquirer appealing to people who actually buy the Enquirer. It;s not as if anyone actually cares about the Enquirer. It's a joke paper to most Americans. It's the Apter mags saying THE FREEBIRDS MUST BE BANNED!" aimed at wrestling fans. Most people read it and laugh and a few dummies believe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Didn't this get covered in the US? Â https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 It got a fair share of coverage I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 The difference is that Gawker didn't hack Hogan's phone/computer to get the video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blak Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Â Â Gawker just seems nasty and spiteful, and the justice system should do all it can to crack down on this grubby vulturous form of "journalism". It is genuinely toxic and this is in a post-Murdoch scandal environment too. there's a difference between "nasty and spiteful" and the kind of stuff we associate with the tabloids. it's not the law's place to prevent anyone from digging up 20-year-old dirt on Bill Cosby, as long as there's evidence for it. The case is about privacy not about finding evidence for criminal activity. Â Did Hulk Hogan do anything illegal? Â No, but he did something that Gawker felt, rightly or wrongly, was of public interest and the problem with a ruling like this (if upheld) is that it can create a "chilling effect" on investigative journalism that would otherwise pursue more, ahem, legitimate items of public interest -- including illegal activities -- without fear of reprisal from the accused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted March 22, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Bullshit. The issue isn't whether they had the right to report that Hogan had sex with his buddy's wife and said racist things. The problem was that they showed footage of the act on thier website without his permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blak Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Bullshit. The issue isn't whether they had the right to report that Hogan had sex with his buddy's wife and said racist things. The problem was that they showed footage of the act on thier website without his permission. Â I agree with you that the latter is obviously the primary reason that they brought suit; the concern (as I understand it, anyway) is that, by ruling against Gawker, they provide an opening for interpretations that can target the former. Â And I should probably make it clear that I think both Gawker and Hogan are garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Honestly, I don't care if this limits the press's ability to gossip about the private lives of celebrities in the entertainment media. I think that the freedom of the press in that area has become a tyranny which tramples over those people's basic right to privacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Where things get murky is that Hogan's original lawsuit clearly was designed partly to stop Gawker and other publications from reporting on the sex tape that had racial slurs on it, especially airing audio/video of the footage. They didn't just want Gawker's video taken down, but the narrative too (which Gawker resisted and won on appeal). Hogan's lawyers misrepresented their original case to the jury when they stressed that all they always cared about was the video being published. Moreover, the sole juror willing to speak to the media seemed more concerned about Hogan's private conversations being published than the sex itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Absolutely none of the above bothers me. The "news" media needs to stay much further out of the private lives of any celebrity who isn't a public official, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted March 22, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Where things get murky is that Hogan's original lawsuit clearly was designed partly to stop Gawker and other publications from reporting on the sex tape that had racial slurs on it, especially airing audio/video of the footage. They didn't just want Gawker's video taken down, but the narrative too (which Gawker resisted and won on appeal). Hogan's lawyers misrepresented their original case to the jury when they stressed that all they always cared about was the video being published. Moreover, the sole juror willing to speak to the media seemed more concerned about Hogan's private conversations being published than the sex itself. Â This isn't murky. It doesn't matter if they wanted the whole thing down or not. It should never have been on the site in the first place. If I am hiring a lawyer, I would want them to fight to take everything down including the narrative also. It would be one thing if Hogan said these things in a public forum like Michael RIchards. He didn't. Would Hogan have sued Gawker if they "reported" he was a racist who slept with Bubba's wife but didn't show the video? Probably not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 I still don't understand how even if Hogan's original claim was to remove the footage was because of the racial slurs and not the sexual acts why that still doesn't justify his claim that Gawker published footage of himself without his consent and was in the wrong by doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.