
Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes - boardmad
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35849140
======
spriggan3
So I see a lot of journalists on twitter defending Gawker. In my opinion
Gawker is making journalists look bad at first place. I believe in press
freedom but is "revenge porn" freedom of press ? If an unknown party leaked
that sex tape, most journalists would condemn that and not label it "freedom
of speech" so why the double standard ?

~~~
whateveridunno
Personally, I think that while Gawker wasn't right to release the tape, fining
them $115 million isn't right either. $115 million could easily sink Gawker
entirely. I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the place but it's a dangerous
precedent to set for press freedom if a single editor's single bad decision
can take down an entire site.

Of course, the amount is likely to be revised down in appeals.

~~~
microcolonel
While I respect that conclusion in general, I think that Gawker in particular
has done a lot of sadistic and mean "reporting" which serves no public good.
Them being sunk seems almost a public good in my opinion.

~~~
bogomipz
Indeed. The final straw for me was when they outed a Conde Nast exec, there
was no scandal, no real story at all but they(Nick Denton) went ahead and
destroyed this guy's life. You can read about it here:

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/17/gawkers-
appar...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/17/gawkers-apparent-
outing-cfo-meets-internet-backlash/30280505/)

I think $115 million is OK.

------
teach
Good for him.

I think Jerry "Tycho" Holkins expresses best how I feel about Gawker in this
whole affair.

[https://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2016/03/14/the-
didact...](https://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2016/03/14/the-didactic-
order)

~~~
Analemma_
Ugh, no thank you. I've liked some of Jerry's opinion pieces in the past, but
I think he's way off the mark here, especially with this:

> The causes they enunciate are tarnished, just for being in their mouths.

That's the kind of thinking that gets you atrocious policy, especially in the
judicial sphere. As I said below, people who want bad to enshrine bad
precedent will pick the most unsympathetic targets in the courts in order to
get it - including law enforcement (actually, _especially_ law enforcement.
Why isn't Apple helping the FBI stop terrorists???)

The courts sometimes see through this trick. Did you know that your Miranda
rights exist because the Supreme Court threw out the conviction of a scumbag
who had, indisputably, robbed and raped a mentally handicapped girl? It's sad
that they didn't this time though, and that apparently the vox populi didn't
either.

~~~
the_ancient
Miranda did not create any rights, only the requirement that the government
inform you of your rights...

~~~
Crito
If the government is _required_ do something for you ( _" inform you of your
rights"_, in this case), then wouldn't it be reasonable to say you say that
you have the _right_ to that service?

Miranda created the right to have the government inform you of your rights.

~~~
JupiterMoon
Exactly and that new right is actually very important. We should not expect
the average person to have enough legal training to know their rights at all
times.

------
tdurden
I am sure Gawker didn't help their case with jurors when they said they would
only draw a line at posting a sex tape of a four year old [1]. If they did
have a chance of winning this case, they totally shot themselves in the foot
with their testimony.

[1] [http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-
tape-...](http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-tape-
of-a-4-year-old/)

~~~
themartorana
I'm pretty sure we can all agree he was being sarcastic and flippant after
hours of being on the stand. I'm not making excuses, but the NY Post loves
them a way-skewed sensational headline that isn't so grounded in reality.

~~~
Crito
Of course it was a joke. But what sort of person, in that sort of situation,
makes a joke like that?

Forget the NYP completely and watch the video of how it played out on court.
He comes off as a complete piece of shit.

~~~
skuhn
That one quip really embodies the entire case against Gawker I think. Daulerio
was found personally liable as part of this verdict, and he had to know what
the stakes were when he testified. By making himself look callous, unsympathic
and irresponsible just to satisfy a fleeting desire to be sardonic he did
himself zero favors with the jury.

It's not about scoring a zinger against the opposing counsel. It's about
putting across your narrative with the jury. I highly doubt Daulerio's legal
counsel thought that narrative should be that he's just a grade-A asshole. No
surprise that someone who couldn't keep it together when it really mattered to
him in a deeply personal way can't be trusted to maintain journalistic
integrity during the day-to-day operations of a site.

------
tomp
I'm not sure how I feel about the verdict (freedom of speech vs privacy), but
I'm really happy that the media sexist bias was exposed. It was really
distasteful how they were criticising and condemning "The Fappening" (i.e.
female stolen porn) while happily participating in the reverse (Hulk Hogan's
male stolen porn).

~~~
tptacek
Bollea's "porn" wasn't "stolen". It was created without his knowledge and
circulated by the person who created it, which is how it leaked.

That doesn't remotely describe what happened to the women whose pictures were
published a few years back.

It's a little disquieting to read a comment that suggests there might have
been a free speech angle to the latter story. Bollea's case might (in fact,
probably will) be reversed on appeal.

~~~
rco8786
Is it being created without his knowledge better or wore than what happened in
the fappening? I'm not sure what your comment is trying to say. Both things
sound pretty horrendous.

~~~
moistgorilla
While both are horrendous, I think we can say that having intimate photos of
you taken without your knowledge being spread is worth than having photos you
took being spread. The reason being that in the first case your rights to
privacy were actually violated twice.

~~~
tptacek
No.

~~~
moistgorilla
Thanks for the interesting discussion. Anyway after further thought I came to
agree with you because the person in the second situation also had their
privacy violated twice when they had the video/images stolen from their device
and when it was spread without their consent.

But I think it's pretty self-evident that doing multiple wrong things to do
one final wrong thing is worse than just doing the final wrong thing.

------
danso
I've long stopped reading Gawker for serious news or even entertainment...but
I'm going to miss it as it is possibly the only independent online media
outlet that actually made a profit. BuzzFeed might make a profit but
NBC(Comcast) owns $200M of it [1]. Vox, too, got $200M from NBC [2]. Vice, as
far as anyone can tell, is not near profitability (it just started its own TV
channel), and has $400M from Disney [3]...and everyone else that is not a
traditional news organization is not really on the radar for long-term
viability.

What's sad is that this was pretty much an unforced error. They already got
plenty of page views from the post that described seeing the tape. The editor
who made the decision is no longer even there and failed at his own online
media startup. What shouldn't be overlooked is how much Gawker invested in its
own content-management system, Kinja...the estimates are as high as $20
million for what is literally a glorified, multi-site commenting system [4].

Very few online organizations could survive that kind of sunk
investment...Gawker's editorial bent was such that it would post the Hogan
tape just for the hell of it rather than to make pageview profit...but Gawker
pretty much lost all of its great writers and reporters over the past two
years, including Adrian Chen (who now seems to regularly turn huge features at
the NYT and the New Yorker) and Nitasha Tiku.

I'm going to miss Deadspin especially. Sports news and entertainment was
already monopolized by ESPN/Disney...we don't even have Grantland anymore.

[1] [http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/18/buzzfeed-
nbcuniversal/](http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/18/buzzfeed-nbcuniversal/)

[2]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/business/media/nbcuniversa...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/business/media/nbcuniversal-
invests-200-million-in-vox-media.html?_r=0)

[3] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-08/disney-
sai...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-08/disney-said-to-
double-investment-in-vice-media-to-400-million)

[4] [http://digiday.com/publishers/gawkers-kinja-retreat-shows-
fa...](http://digiday.com/publishers/gawkers-kinja-retreat-shows-false-hope-
in-publishers-licensing-tech/)

~~~
SCAQTony
Gawker made"...In 2009 $60 million in advertising revenues and more than $30
million in operating profit. ..." Wikipedia

When it goes to appeal I am sure the number will be negotiated downward or
nobody wins and Gawker closes.

~~~
dublinben
>nobody wins and Gawker closes

I'm pretty sure the Hulk Hogan team would consider that a victory. If they are
able to bankrupt and shutter Gawker, they will be vindicated.

------
pgrote
Nick Denton statement on the jury verdict:

[https://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/710973280308559873](https://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/710973280308559873)

Hulk Hogan statement on the jury verdict:

[https://twitter.com/HulkHogan/status/710988297284292608](https://twitter.com/HulkHogan/status/710988297284292608)

~~~
SixSigma
thanks god

forgets god did it to him in the first place

------
gregpilling
So let's see. Hulk Hogan is worth $25M according to the interwebs. His
reputation is in tatters for the video of him doing something he did. So he
gets awarded almost 5 times as much for lost earnings, as he is worth total?

Of course we all know this will go to appeal, where the real fate will be
decided. Gawker does not have 115M to pay, and Hulk is not likely to find
himself 5x richer.

The real question is where does the First Amendment end up with this ruling?
That is the change (or not) that would matter most to the average citizen.

~~~
Veratyr
My understanding was that the constitution was only relevant to government
action. Since this is a civil lawsuit, the First Amendment should not be
relevant, should it?

It's like how the 2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms and the
government can't take that away from you but a landlord can keep you from
having a gun in your apartment.

If this was a criminal case the First Amendment would be relevant (by my
understanding) but since it's civil, it's irrelevant.

~~~
icebraining
No, it's not irrelevant:
[http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commonl...](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commonlaw.htm)

------
tptacek
I think @Popehat summed this up nicely:

[https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/710972390566563845](https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/710972390566563845)

    
    
        First they came for Gawker,
        and I did not speak out.
        Because fuck Gawker.

~~~
MajesticHobo
That's not a nice summary at all. It's a (mildly amusing) inane quip that also
happens to miss the point.

~~~
draw_down
I dunno, I think it hits the nail on the head. They're such pieces of shit,
but that's not always a good reason to be happy someone lost a lawsuit.

~~~
MajesticHobo
I don't like Gawker either. But seeing people praise this decision merely
because Gawker sucks, while casually dismissing other concerns, including the
serious First Amendment ramifications, makes me _very_ uneasy.

~~~
imron
What serious First Amendment ramifications are these?

The First Amendment doesn't give you free reign to say whatever you like
whenever you like, and there are already limitations on the First Amendment
with regards to things like obscenity and speech that appeals to prurient
interests:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Obscenity)

Posting a private sex tape without permission is not likely to pass the Miller
test:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test)

~~~
icebraining
How would the lack of permission after the Miller test?

------
sportanova
What's the time table for Gawker's payment? Can they appeal without paying?

~~~
Analemma_
In many states you don't have to pay until the appeals process is complete,
but in Florida you have to pay (or at least post a bond, it's unclear)
immediately. There's a good chance Gawker will be closing down.

~~~
pgrote
"Florida law requires a party to post a bond for the full amount of damages,
but that is capped at $50 million #hulkvsgawk"

[https://twitter.com/TomKludt/status/710964054060355584](https://twitter.com/TomKludt/status/710964054060355584)

------
skuhn
Putting aside the matter of case itself, I'm getting a lot of schadenfreude
out of watching Gawker fail to hold itself to the same standards it keeps for
everyone else.

As of now, two plus hours after TechCrunch [1], BBC [2], Recode [3], CNN [4],
Buzzfeed [5], HN [6], Ars Technica [7], Wired [8], Slate [9] and countless
other sites have all published articles about the verdict, Gawker's site is
silent on the topic. And this comes after they've done daily articles
throughout the trial, but now the pill is apparently too bitter to swallow.

I don't think that being first is always best, but Gawker sure seemed to think
so up until now. Apparently reveling in public about their own misfortune is
finally the bridge too far.

[1] [http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/18/jury-awards-hulk-
hogan-115m...](http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/18/jury-awards-hulk-
hogan-115m-in-sex-tape-lawsuit-against-gawker/)

[2] [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-
canada-35849140](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35849140)

[3] [http://recode.net/2016/03/18/florida-jury-hands-hulk-
hogan-a...](http://recode.net/2016/03/18/florida-jury-hands-hulk-
hogan-a-115-million-victory-in-the-gawker-sex-tape-trial/)

[4] [http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/18/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-
jury...](http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/18/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-jury-
deliberations/index.html)

[5] [http://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorgantopoulos/hulk-hogan-
ga...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorgantopoulos/hulk-hogan-gawker-sex-
tape-lawsuit-verdict#.qlXQeygRm)

[6] right here!

[7] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/115-million-
verdi...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/115-million-verdict-in-
hulk-hogan-sex-tape-lawsuit-could-wipe-out-gawker/)

[8] [http://www.wired.com/2016/03/jury-awards-hulk-
hogan-115-mill...](http://www.wired.com/2016/03/jury-awards-hulk-
hogan-115-million-gawker-sex-tape-post/)

[9]
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/18/jury_award...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/18/jury_awards_hulk_hogan_115_million_in_gawker_suit_punitive_damages_still.html)

------
Trisell
I agree that we live in a country With a constitution that gives us free
speech, but while we have the right to say something, that doesn't relieve us
of the responsibility of what we say.

Gawker had every right to post this video, they also now have the full
responsibility for the consequences. This case has established that you can
still post sex tapes, but you now run the very real risk of loosing a lot in
doing that.

This court case doesn't say you can't, it just says that doing it could be
prohibitively expensive to do it.

~~~
jevinskie
Are rights that you have to pay a lot of money for really rights? See poll
taxes. I'm not arguing either way about the current case in question.

------
ps4fanboy
Gawker said it best,

[http://jezebel.com/5985635/an-idiots-guide-to-free-
speech](http://jezebel.com/5985635/an-idiots-guide-to-free-speech)

------
fweespee_ch
Good. Gawker, frankly, needs to be destroyed at this point.

I'm all for free speech but you don't need to post non-consensual porn to the
internet to accomplish that.

------
minimaxir
Before anyone goes on a "Gawker is a terrible site, they deserve it" tangent,
keep in mind that this does set precedent for other individuals to sue other
media companies for massive amounts of money, which could be another problem
for an already-struggling ecosystem. (Although in fairness, this incident is
particularly egregious, especially as they disobeyed a judge's order to take
down the video)

~~~
imron
"Gawker is a terrible site, they deserve it"

They do deserve it. Not because they are a terrible site, but because of their
actions that resulted in this case.

This isn't some random act of happenstance that put Gawker in trouble. It was
something brought about entirely by their own actions and decisions.

It's not a bad thing to have a legal precedent that says you cannot post
private sex tapes online, without permission, and then refuse to take them
down when ordered by the court.

Most people would have agreed with that without needing to be told it by the
court.

I guess however there was enough financial incentive for Gawker to keep the
tape up even after being ordered to take it down, and if that's the bed you're
going to make, no-one will feel sorry for you when you have to lie in it.

~~~
minimaxir
Yes, the outcome is fair based on their actions. I'm not disputing that in the
slightest. (I added the no-ad-hominem qualifier to avoid getting the comments
on this submission derailed. Which was wishful thinking in retrospect.)

------
nradov
Most of Gawker is terrible, but if the company goes down I hope Jalopnik
survives in some form. They write good articles about cars and racing, and
appear to maintain high ethical standards.
[http://jalopnik.com](http://jalopnik.com)

~~~
jessaustin
I expect every "sub-property" will be sold to _someone_ , although perhaps not
for much money. Perhaps some other car-focused site will make the trustee an
offer...

------
crikli
Yeah, fuck Gawker (and Deadspin too, for that matter) but if this means the
death of Jalopnik that's going to free up at least an hour of my day. :(

------
grghk
On a side note: I can't find this tape anywhere inline. Quite the cleansing
however they pulled that off.

------
return0
I still don't understand the fascination with celebrities, esp. in the anglo
world.

~~~
moistgorilla
>esp. in the anglo world

oh god, you think it's bad here in the anglo world? Don't look at Korea and
Japan then.

------
bbanyc
Both sides in this case were utterly contemptible. I would have found that
Gawker invaded Hogan's privacy and awarded Hogan one dollar in damages,
leaving everyone unhappy but the lawyers.

Invasion of privacy, despite its questionable origins, is now generally
recognized as a valid tort and outside of the protections of the First
Amendment. No new precedent is being set here.

~~~
tptacek
I don't think Bollea is a particularly good person, but I'm not clear on how
his conduct in this controversy was "contemptible".

For the 1A concern here, consider the Anthony Weiner case, in which
indisputably private photos of Weiner were also published. I don't like that
they were (I think he could have been just as effectively ejected from public
life with good writing) but it's concerning to think that he'd have a tort
hammer to swing to keep the story from coming out at all.

~~~
tzs
As you noted, good writing should be sufficient in a case like Weiner's to
eject him from office. Similarly, in a case like Bollea's, good writing should
be sufficient to get to the public all that is newsworthy.

That good writing can mention that the author has seen the photos or videos,
and describe them as necessary to support the story.

Of course, if the photos and videos are not published the subject might accuse
the publication of lying, but the original publication can show the photos or
videos to other publications who can also write stories about them.

In a case like Weiner's, I don't think the public would believe him if it came
down to several major newspapers all reporting that they had seen the photos
first hand, versus Weiner saying that they are all lying.

If the subject tries to sue a publication over their written story, the photos
or videos will be evidence for the defense, and the likelihood of them getting
out to the public goes way up. That should provide quite a bit of
discouragement of intimidation lawsuits.

~~~
chx
I would think that in a case like Weiner's if Weiner says the writer is lying,
send him an offical warning that the publication will release the audiovisual
proof if he insists. Hilarity ensues.

