
$115M verdict in Hulk Hogan sex-tape lawsuit could wipe out Gawker - kgwgk
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/115-million-verdict-in-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-lawsuit-could-wipe-out-gawker
======
Kristine1975
So they published a privately made video about people having sex without those
people's consent? Yeah, good riddance Gawker. I'm still hoping the Condé Nast
CFO sues them for outing him:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Cond.C3.A9_Nast_CFO_pro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Cond.C3.A9_Nast_CFO_prostitution_claims)

~~~
vermontdevil
How different is this from Snowden giving top secret documents to Greenwald et
al?

It's the "compelling news interest" so I think it falls under the First
Amendment for Gawker.

I wouldn't be surprised it'll be overturned on appeal.

But Florida does require a bond to be put up and it's significant. This might
hamstring Gawker while they go through the appeals process.

~~~
DanBC
What's the compelling news interest with hulk hogan sex tape?

"In the public interest" != "what the public is interested in".

~~~
vermontdevil
Entertainment news. Yeah I personally do not care. But Hulk has fans. And
always boast of his sexual prowess, uses the media to sell his image etc.

Hence news interest in that area. It's distasteful but I prefer the 1A protect
as much as possible before the govt or courts tries to narrow it down.

~~~
Delmania
The 1st Amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT, not from INDIVIDUALS.
Bollea was forced to leave the WWE, and his brand was damaged as a result of
this action. He suffered real monetary loss. This is literally an example of
the textbook definition of defamation, which in CIVIL cases, the first
amendment does not protect.

You are not allowed to say harmful or malicious things about another person
that has the potential to cause damage to their reputation.

~~~
harryh
In order for something to be defamation it has to be a false statement. No one
has accused Gawker of saying anything untrue.

So no, this is not a textbook example of defamation.

You're also confused about the scope of the 1st amendment. It applies in civil
cases. I'm not sure why you would think it doesn't. See, for example _Hustler
Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell_ for a famous example. The trial was a central plot
point in a major motion picture!

~~~
Delmania
Fair point on the defamation.

Bringing up the Falwell vs. Flynt was more about protecting parody. Very few
people would have taken seriously the idea that Falwell would run an ad in
Hustler magazine, it was clearly satire. In this case, however, the
information was recorded without the other's party's notice. I'd have to look
up the laws in California, but I know in NYS, we have to inform the other
party when we are recording are the conversation. In this case, it's the right
to privacy vs. freedom of speech. The argument that since a person is a
celebrity he does not have privscy rights never made sense. He is entitled to
his privacy as much as the rest of us.

~~~
harryh
You said:

"The 1st Amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT, not from INDIVIDUALS."

I was merely pointing out that this statement is wrong. The 1st amendment does
protect defendants in civil trials. In this case it was found (rightly or
wrongly) that Hulk's right to privacy outweighed Gawker's freedom of speech,
but that doesn't mean the 1st didn't apply at all. It simply means it lost
this time.

It doesn't even mean that celebrity's rights to privacy will always outweigh
freedom of speech. I'm sure that TMZ prints stuff every single day that
celebrities would prefer to remain private and you don't see them losing
lawsuits very often.

This was a very particular case right on the edge of the line. And, by the
way, it will certainly be appealed and Gawker could very well win in a higher
court.

------
rnernento
I was a regular Gawker reader for a while, their salacious stories are hard to
resist. Eventually I realized they were crossing lines, both in their
aggressive attacks toward individuals who didn't really deserve it and their
general preference for sexy headlines and clicks over actual stories and
reporting. If this really does bring down Gawker I will consider Hulk Hogan
one of the great heroes of our generation. Hopefully it will cause other
"news" outlets to step a little more carefully in regards to casually ruining
someone's life.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Really? The guy that spends half the time on tape making racist remarks? I
don't know, 'hero' isn't the first word that crosses my mind.

~~~
TillE
Name any widely revered person; basically every one of them has serious flaws.

Besides, you can honor an act without endorsing the entirety of the person.
Lovecraft was an amazing writer and also a frothing racist.

~~~
dalke
Mr. Fred Rogers.

------
afarrell
This article written by Justices-to-be Warren and Brandeis about the right to
privacy is always a good read:
[http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/priva...](http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html)

------
zamiang_brennan
I'm a bit confused why people are taking the side of Hulk Hogan. Maybe the
dislike of gossip news is blinding people to the larger free speech
implications.

Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person?

Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person
without their consent?

Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that
were initially obtained illegally but were given to the publication? (see
wikileaks…etc)

If you answered 'yes' to all 3, what principals (or ideally…laws) let you side
with Hulk Hogan?

~~~
Delmania
Because this is a civil case, that's why. The government has does nothing to
Gawker. No one has been censored, illegally detained, or made to vanish. That
is what free speech is about: ensuring the government cannot censor or
retaliate against you for publishing an piece of work that criticizes the
government.

In civil cases, freedom of speech does not cover defamation of character
(libel and slander). I think publishing someone's sex tape could definitely
harm their reputation, which is what free speech does NOT protect.

Relevant XKCD: [https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)

------
philjohn
And nothing of value was lost.

------
J_Darnley
The discussion attached to the BBC's version of the story can be found here
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11315985](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11315985)
(135 comments)

------
seunosewa
The $115m verdict seems excessive. It vastly exceeds the damage done by the
offense and the benefits gained by the perpetrators.

~~~
Khaine
It takes into account that gawker ignored a court order and kept the video
up1.

They are absolute scum. And then to be such hypocrites about the fappening.
Good riddance to such rubbish.

1 [http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-
hoga...](http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-
tape-po-481328088)

~~~
ikeboy
The post you link to says they took the video down, only leaving the post up.

One would think someone would read posts before citing them as a source, and
notice if it actually says the opposite.

~~~
Khaine
Its funny, because the wikipedia article says the opposite:

In April 2013, Gawker wrote, "A judge told us to take down our Hulk Hogan sex
tape post. We won't." It also stated that "we are refusing to comply" with the
order of the circuit court judge.

And so does the archived version of the page.

~~~
dalke
From April 27, 2013, [http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/GAWKER-
SAYS-...](http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/GAWKER-SAYS-NO-TO-
COURT-ORDER-IN-HULK-HOGAN-SEX-TAPE-CASE-1333410) :

> A Pinellas County Judge, Pamela A.M. Campbell issued an order Wednesday
> directing Gawker to remove a video of Hogan (real name Terry Bollea)
> purportedly having sex with the ex-wife of a disc jockey named "Bubba the
> Love Sponge" Clem, as well as a 1,400-word narrative about the tape and
> hundreds of user-submitted comments.

> The site did take down the video, but the narrative and comments remain on
> the site with the website's attorney, Gregg Thomas saying the order to
> remove that material infringes on the website's First Amendment rights.

So, yes, the video was taken down. No, the post _concerning_ the video was
not, despite the court order to do so.

I believe "Hulk Hogan sex tape post" refers to the latter commentary post, not
the actual video.

------
triztian
Hows is this hacker news?, I mean; seems like another Kim K story....

~~~
anonymousab
Gawker is a major media org which had and has a lot of influence over online
news reporting.

Going further than that, this judgement may be useful in determining how
future, similar acts are treated by the courts.

