where will you be when gawker media finally goes to court for the hulk hogan debacle?

Nick Denton is preparing for the biggest fight of his life. The Gawker Media founder and C.E.O.'s opponent: celebrated professional wrestler Hulk Hogan (real name: Terry Bollea), who sued Denton and Gawker in 2012 after the gossip blog published a supercut of his tape and refused to take it down. The case has seen numerous twists and turns over the past three years, but it’s finally set to come to trial in Pinellas County, Fla.—where Hogan lives—on July 6.

Denton faces a judge and jury who are skeptical of, if not outright hostile to, his blog empire and philosophy of reporting the “story behind the story,” and some inside Gawker say that they expect the company to lose the case. A loss, and an award of even a fraction of the $100 million Hogan’s attorneys are seeking, could empty the company’s coffers, forcing Denton to either sell the company outright or to hand much of its equity over to deep-pocketed investors.

Hulk Hogan's Lawyers wrote:“If it were up to the Gawker Defendants, there would be no privacy in America—everyone’s secrets would be exposed, the intimate details of their lives would be fully published—and everyone would gather at Gawker to mock, ridicule, and gawk at what previously was confined to private conversations and closed bedroom doors. In other words, if it were up to Gawker, all walls would become windows, and no privacy would exist anywhere.”

Magician wrote:Glorious justice.
They had the audacity to shame people for posting nudes of celebrities while they smugly boasted about having a sex tape of a celebrity.

• Gawker published stolen Heather Morris nudes
  
• Gawker published stolen Olivia Munn nudes
  
• Gawker published stolen Olivia Munn nudes 2
  
• Gawker published stolen Hulk Hogan sex tape
  
• Gawker published stolen Christina Hendricks nudes
  
• Deadspin published stolen Roy Jones Jr. nudes
  
• Gawker published Jenna Jameson nudes
  
• Gawker published Tatiana Barbosa nudes
  
• Gawker published Lenore Zann nudes
  
• Gawker called for Jane Pratt stolen nudes
  
  

If Gawker does lose the jury trial, it is likely to win on appeal. The appeals court, after all, reversed the lower court’s preliminary injunction back in January 2014, ruling that both the video and Daulerio’s commentary about it were protected by the First Amendment. The problem for Gawker is that it could already be broke by the time the appeals court overturns the jury’s decision.

Florida law generally requires a party that wants to appeal a monetary judgment to post a bond equal to the judgment plus two years’ interest. If the jury found that Hogan was entitled to $100 million in damages and Gawker was required to post a bond of at least that amount, the company would not be able to do so without selling itself to a larger company or bringing on outside investors. Even if the jury only awarded Hogan a fraction of that (and Florida courts are known to give high awards) the results for the company would be disastrous.

Denton said that he estimates there’s a roughly 1-in-10 chance that Gawker will face “disaster”—meaning that they lose the trial, the jury awards Hogan a large amount in damages, and Gawker is required to put up a bond for the full amount while it appeals the ruling.

vinka wrote:

Hulk Hogan's Lawyers wrote:“If it were up to the Gawker Defendants, there would be no privacy in America—everyone’s secrets would be exposed, the intimate details of their lives would be fully published—and everyone would gather at Gawker to mock, ridicule, and gawk at what previously was confined to private conversations and closed bedroom doors. In other words, if it were up to Gawker, all walls would become windows, and no privacy would exist anywhere.”

it's funny, because it's true

>>198954
>based on location
Not just that alone, but it does help.
The fact is, Gawker is in a pretty untenable legal position, because even though it was technically legal, all Hogan has to prove is that his reputation and/or brand name was damaged by this, and he'll have little trouble with that.
The fact that it's a jury trial also weighs in his favor, as Hogan is an individual, and a likeable one at that, while Gawker is a media empire based on exploiting human misery.
Hogan's probably going to take them to the cleaners.

I do respect that [Gawker Media] think[s] Hulk Hogan's cock is a good hill to die on.

You may feel it is not your business but—and here is the kicker—you don’t get to decide that it is no one else’s business. They get to decide that, by reading or ignoring the post. Hulk Hogan also doesn’t get to decide that. Frankly, I find it hypocritical that many posters here—who clearly read the original story—are opining about the morality of it. If you thought it was none of your business—why did you read the damn thing?

This is the first that I’ve heard Gawker’s rationale that you posted the sex tape because Hogan had talked about his sex life publicly before. I don’t believe the court will buy that argument. We talk about sex, bowel movements, and menstrual cycles, too, but most people don’t think talking about these private acts publicly opens the door to having film of us in our bathrooms on the toilet taking care of business.

‘Give me a break. Take responsibility for what you did here.’
What he did here? He had consensual sex. Does Gawker think he’s Hester Prynne and needs to wear a scarlet letter “A” on his forehead? When did Gawker become adult sex shamers?

You probably will eventually win this case, but as I said then, having the *right* to do something doesn’t mean you *should* do something. Hulk Hogan is a pretty innocuous part of American culture. He didn’t hurt anyone by having consensual sex with a willing adult. He didn’t rape a child. He isn’t a politician trying to take away the right of other consenting adults to have sex. There really was no journalistic reason, no “truth” to out by posting this sex tape.

AJ Archer-KaneNick Denton
6/12/15 12:58pm
Follow ajarcherkane
Flag
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
Share to Twitter
Go to permalink
This is one of the dumbest things Gawker has ever done. You invaded someone’s privacy and violated their consent when you posted this video. And I get the argument that Hogan is a rich white guy so therefor neither privacy or nor consent matter (even if I disagree with the argument I understand it). However, THERE IS A FUCKING WOMAN IN THE VIDEO, ASSHOLE. YOU ALSO VIOLATED A WOMANS PRIVACY AND HER CONSENT.

Gawker writes all sorts of shit about how anti-revenge porn they are and how much they hate assholes who post videos of people having sex online without their consent, BUT YOU JUST DID THE SAME FUCKING THING. And you make a Reddit-like “Free Speech” claim to defend yourselves.

I mean you took so many people to task over the iCloud leak, but you just did the same thing to Hogan and even if you don't care about Hogan you just did the same thing to ANOTHER WOMAN.