• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Hulk Hogan Wins $115 Million Verdict against Gawker

The whole thing seemed like a publicity stunt by some gross people to me. If it was and Hulk ends up getting paid for it, that'll be a real shame.
 
I hope no one is a fan of any of the sites that are a part of Gawker Media:

The stunning sum, which may have punitive damages added to it, is a life-threatening event for the New York-based network of news and gossip sites. Gawker media was one of the first successful, large digital-only news companies. The final sum is even more than the $100 million Bollea was seeking.

<snip>

Gawker owns several other popular online news sites, including the gadget site Gizmodo, Lifehacker, Deadspin, Kotaku, Jezebel, and Jalopnik.
Click to expand...
 
Well, my productivity at work will go up. At least until I find another set of mindless reading websites to peruse on my phone when I'm supposed to be working.
 
I have no qualms about using the words evil and retarded when talking about the likes of these cretins.
 
I never saw the video, but its existence scares me (like The Ring come to life). Can I sue?
 
It ain't over. You have a couple decades of appeals and negotiations. I say the Hulkster gers less than a million out of this.
 
Is it true that in order to appeal the defendant must put the amount of the settlement in escrow? I read that in a site that seemed rather "iffy".

The details of this case, the video, and what Gawker did in detail, is disgusting - I doubt this was a publicity stunt.

Until I hear otherwise, good for H.H.
 
Funny, Gawker removed their "Coverage of the Hulk Hogan vs Gawker Trial" article from their site!
 
Is this one of those cases where the jury awards a large amount and then the judge reduces it to a much smaller amount? We see cases where juries award crazy high amounts only to be "corrected" by the judge. Is Florida a state where whatever the jury decides becomes final?
 
William Parcher said:
Is this one of those cases where the jury awards a large amount and then the judge reduces it to a much smaller amount? We see cases where juries award crazy high amounts only to be "corrected" by the judge. Is Florida a state where whatever the jury decides becomes final?
Click to expand...

I suspect it will be, or they may reach a settlement for less to avoid the uncertainty of an appeal.

For one thing, Hogan only asked for $100 million in damages. The jury added a little extra. But we'll see.

The breakdown was $60 million for "emotional distress" and $55 million for "economic harm". There will also be punitive damages which will be determined separately.
Now, I don't really know how much Hogan's "emotional distress" is worth, that's kind of subjective, but does anyone really think this caused him $55 million in economic harm? I would assume that's something the judge would look at, given he wasn't even demanding that much in the first place.
 
What I don't get is why anyone ever, ever would watch a video entitled "Hulk Hogan Sex Tape".
 
From what I've read, there was evidence excluded from the trial that might ought've been in there, so an appeal is certain. The judge barred Gawker from calling as witness the person who made the tape, who was the husband of the woman in the tape and Hogan's friend who suggested they do it in the first place. If the jury had known the whole thing was done on purpose with the consent and knowledge of Hogan they might have decided the other way.
 
Puppycow said:
...but does anyone really think this caused him $55 million in economic harm? I would assume that's something the judge would look at, given he wasn't even demanding that much in the first place.
Click to expand...
That figure was based on Hulk being deprived of the potential economic value of the porn clip. They calculated the price of a pay-per-view multiplied by the number of potential viewers who would pay.


Turkel (Hulk's lawyer) said he had arrived at the $50m damages figure by estimating that people would pay $4.95 to view a sex tape and multiply that by the estimated 7m people who viewed the story.

He also added $15m that he claims Gawker made from selling advertising.
Click to expand...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Gawker-jury-awarding-wrestler-115MILLION.html
 
TragicMonkey said:
From what I've read, there was evidence excluded from the trial that might ought've been in there, so an appeal is certain. The judge barred Gawker from calling as witness the person who made the tape, who was the husband of the woman in the tape and Hogan's friend who suggested they do it in the first place. If the jury had known the whole thing was done on purpose with the consent and knowledge of Hogan they might have decided the other way.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not allowing the jury to hear the origin of the tape seems crazy since everyone involved would be exactly the people one would expect to make a play for publicity by any means necessary.

While I wouldn't shed a tear about Gawker being drummed out of the Internet, the idea that Hulk Hogan - who obtained has-been status long ago - should get a monstrous payday is pretty offensive.
 
The testimony I read from Gawker was quite disgusting as to the company's views on privacy and their "right" to show sex tapes without any approval of the participants. I believe that they testified that they had a right to show sex tapes with participants as young as 5 years old.

If this was simply a publicity stunt for Hogan, then it was truly horrible publicity for Gawker. Is it true that there is no such thing as negative publicity, did Gawker miscalculate, or was the invasion of privacy real?
 
Giordano said:
I believe that they testified that they had a right to show sex tapes with participants as young as 5 years old.
Click to expand...
Not really. The remark was admitted to be flippant and there was no claim to Gawker having a "right" to show child porn.
 
Gawker really should have checked how many times Hogan loses clean before they went ahead with this.
 
William Parcher said:
Not really. The remark was admitted to be flippant and there was no claim to Gawker having a "right" to show child porn.
Click to expand...

Was it not given under oath in court in a highly public setting? I suspect that it indicated a flippant attitude, which is quite relevant to how the business was run in reality and the care with which they considered Hogans privacy. If it was intended as humor, then I suggest that the person providing the comment has additional severe mental and emotional problems.
 
Giordano said:
Was it not given under oath in court in a highly public setting? I suspect that it indicated a flippant attitude, which is quite relevant to how the business was run in reality and the care with which they considered Hogans privacy. If it was intended as humor, then I suggest that the person providing the comment has additional severe mental and emotional problems.
Click to expand...
It was said under oath, and under cross examination the defendant (Gawker) said that the comment was flippant. IOW, not meant to be taken literally.

Gawker's point was that they will publish anything that they want to and that they don't care if it offends anyone. But they were not saying that they would publish child porn... they were talking about adult porn. It wasn't intended to be funny it was an attempt to illustrate just how serious they are about NOT CARING if anyone is offended or hurt. I think it was a stupid thing to say but it is still not saying that you can expect to see child porn at any moment on Gawker.
 
William Parcher said:
It was said under oath, and under cross examination the defendant (Gawker) said that the comment was flippant. IOW, not meant to be taken literally.

Gawker's point was that they will publish anything that they want to and that they don't care if it offends anyone. But they were not saying that they would publish child porn... they were talking about adult porn. It wasn't intended to be funny it was an attempt to illustrate just how serious they are about NOT CARING if anyone is offended or hurt. I think it was a stupid thing to say but it is still not saying that you can expect to see child porn at any moment on Gawker.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I never thought that the statement meant that Gawker would carry child porn. Just that their point was that they simply did not care as to the morality of it, if anyone was hurt, or offended. Or (I dare say) about the detailed legal requirements. Personally I suspect that by conveying this attitude at their trial, Gawker helped increase dramatically the willingness of the jury to award a huge settlement in favor of Hogan. To teach Gawker a lesson. I would have felt the same.
 
Babbylonian said:
Yeah, not allowing the jury to hear the origin of the tape seems crazy since everyone involved would be exactly the people one would expect to make a play for publicity by any means necessary.

While I wouldn't shed a tear about Gawker being drummed out of the Internet, the idea that Hulk Hogan - who obtained has-been status long ago - should get a monstrous payday is pretty offensive.
Click to expand...

Is this more or less offensive than the big payday Jesse Ventura got for being libeled in American Sniper?
 
I imagine this was Hulk's reaction on hearing the amount:
62.jpg
 
AdamSK said:
Not really, no. Horrid swarm of clickbait vermin.
Click to expand...

Even if you are a fan of such sites, there's no reason to worry. Those sites fill an ecological niche within the internet, and if Gawker and all its subsidiaries went out of business completely today, there would probably be someone taking its place within a week. It's not like that sort of clickbait requires any great skill to produce.
 
Just because you don't like Gawker is no reason to celebrate this. Hogan is not an innocent victim here: he knew very well that tape was being made, he only sued because Gawker leaked it for free before he could sell it.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Just because you don't like Gawker is no reason to celebrate this. Hogan is not an innocent victim here: he knew very well that tape was being made, he only sued because Gawker leaked it for free before he could sell it.
Click to expand...

Even if what you say is true, why isn't that a reason to celebrate this? Gawker leaked a private video they had no right to; why is not good for them to be punished if the video was later going to be sold rather than kept private?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Just because you don't like Gawker is no reason to celebrate this. Hogan is not an innocent victim here: he knew very well that tape was being made, he only sued because Gawker leaked it for free before he could sell it.
Click to expand...

If that is true why should their pirating of his tape be OK?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Had you ever heard of Hulk Hogan before this case? Is he a public figure? Are video recordings news?
Click to expand...

So then any porn movie with a actor or actress I have heard of is news and can be freely distributed?

If it was intended to be shown as a porno movie, then they violated the copy right and that is also a serious issue. If not then they violated his privacy. Clearly they should step up their game to hack the accounts of female stars to get their nude photos to distribute as well, that is important news that the public has a right to.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So then any porn movie with a actor or actress I have heard of is news and can be freely distributed?

If it was intended to be shown as a porno movie, then they violated the copy right and that is also a serious issue. If not then they violated his privacy. Clearly they should step up their game to hack the accounts of female stars to get their nude photos to distribute as well, that is important news that the public has a right to.
Click to expand...

But Hogan isn't admitting he was going to sell it, he chose the path of aggrieved innocent victim of voyeurism instead. So he couldn't make that argument in court. Even in the US you cannot attempt to have your cake and eat it too. The aggrieved victim thing will crumble in appeal once the evidence of the excluded witness is admitted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom