SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Hulk Hogan has been awarded damages of $115 million in a privacy suit against Gawker, which posted a sex tape featuring Hogan (real name: Terry G. Bollea) online:
The retired wrestler Hulk Hogan was awarded $115 million in damages on Friday by a Florida jury in an invasion of privacy case against Gawker.com over its publication of a sex tape — an astounding figure that tops the $100 million he had asked for, that will probably grow before the trial concludes, and that could send a cautionary signal to online publishers despite the likelihood of an appeal by Gawker.
The wrestler, known in court by his legal name, Terry G. Bollea, sobbed as the verdict was announced in late afternoon, according to people in the courtroom. The jury had considered the case for about six hours.
Mr. Bollea's team said the verdict represented "a statement as to the public's disgust with the invasion of privacy disguised as journalism," adding: "The verdict says, 'No more.' "
NYT also has this guide to the case.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @07:14PM
That's a bunch of shekels to lose. Unfortunately some jewish billionaire will bail them out and they'll be at it again.
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Saturday March 19 2016, @07:24PM
(Score: 0, Troll) by Gaaark on Saturday March 19 2016, @08:57PM
A splooge wealth transfer from the Jooish bankers to Ahryan wrestlers? Frau Braun would approve.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @07:30PM
Yes it is a large amount. This is damages. Remember HH probably makes 5-15 million a year over 10 years. They basically set out to rob him of his job and basically said they did not care. Yes he acted like a douchlog but that does not excuse what they did.
Now they are going to decide how to punish (the punitive part).
As an aside it is semi amusing as the professional outragists over there get to find out what real justice is instead of the scarlet letter type they typically dish out.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Saturday March 19 2016, @07:59PM
They basically set out to rob him of his job
TFA said he is retired.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @08:10PM
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/26/hulk-hogan-wrestling-racism-gawker [theguardian.com]
It may be he retired from wrestling (a 60 year old is probably not going to be doing the stuntwork he was doing in the ring). However, he still worked for them and was fired specifically because of that tape. Like most businesses out there he became a liability because of bad publicity they dropped him.
Them deliberately leaving the story up, and the twitter admission of defying a judges order, as well as the five year old porn being OK probably did not help their case much.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Francis on Saturday March 19 2016, @08:38PM
I think this was ultimately a good thing. I'm not sure what legitimate need the public had for seeing that sex tape or even knowing of it's existence. I don't recall him being a supporter of laws related to infidelity or shaping marriage policy. In which case the tapes would have been relevant to the public in the same way that it's relevant to the public when homophobic senators are caught having gay sex.
The publishing of the tapes is basically the same level of discourse as revenge porn and shouldn't be allowed without the permission of the individuals involved unless it's shot in public.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 20 2016, @01:02AM
While publishing the contents of the tape is in deplorably bad taste, my feeling is that it is newsworthy. The plaintiff is of course a public figure, and we accord public figures less privacy than private people. Ought we permit them some scrap of privacy?...perhaps we ought.
Often the careers of entertainers benefit from the publication of sex tapes. Paris Hilton and the Kardashians come to mind.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday March 20 2016, @06:09AM
The fact that he's a public figure doesn't make it newsworthy.
What would make it newsworthy would be if he'd been running for office on a family values platform or advocating for traditional marriage. Releasing a report about the sex tape in the context of a critique on his work in that area would be completely legitimate. But, as it stands, this is no more newsworthy than the millions of other sex tapes that ordinary people create.
And yes, some people do benefit from the publications, but those are either purposefully leaked by them for publicity in which case it's completely different, or they create their own silver lining, which doesn't make it any less newsworthy in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 20 2016, @09:08PM
> The fact that he's a public figure doesn't make it newsworthy.
It's a factor. Clearly, someone read Gawker's story or viewed the recording, perhaps just out of prurient interest. You seem to be saying that it's not legitimate for news outlets to appeal to us on a base level. Rejoice, then, in this decision. I don't hold the press to that standard.
> [...] running for office on a family values platform or advocating for traditional marriage [...]
If the recording was the actual reason the plaintiff was fired from his job, then apparently his employer felt that the Hulk Hogan character should exemplify some sort of morality. Another possibility is that the employer just wanted some excuse to end the relationship (see also: Kesha v. Dr. Luke [wikipedia.org]).
> And yes, some people do benefit from the publications, but those are either purposefully leaked by them for publicity in which case it's completely different,
The tape was created and released by the plaintiff's friend, who settled with the plaintiff for $5000—yet when the plaintiff and Gawker couldn't agree to settle, $100 million was asked for. Supposedly, the plaintiff didn't know he was being recorded. Believe him if you want, but it ain't necessarily so.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday March 22 2016, @10:37PM
He's already proven his case that the release of the tape wasn't authorized. As far as settling with his friend for a small amount goes, his friend is presumably not where most of the views of the video came from, nor did his friend make money off of it.
People will view sex tapes when they're released, the fact that he's a celebrity only factors into this in that people are likely to randomly or purposefully type his name into a search engine. It's not because there's any legitimate purpose, certainly not the type that the founding fathers intended when framing the 1st amendment nor is there any identifiable public interest in releasing the recording. People who just want to watch porn have plenty of videos available.
They've demonstrated to the jury that the publishing of the tape was what led to the firing. It doesn't matter what the reason the employer used for the actual termination if it was in response to an illegally released tape. They're still on the hook for it.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Sunday March 20 2016, @02:03AM
There are good reasons to consider prosecuting gawker for publishing this tape. "The public doesn't need to know" isn't a good reason. It is actually very horrible to suggest that anyone should be judging what the public needs to know.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tftp on Sunday March 20 2016, @04:17AM
It is actually very horrible to suggest that anyone should be judging what the public needs to know.
We do it all the time. Unless, of course, you live in a house with transparent walls and wear transparent clothes and give your social security number and other PII to anyone who happens to be nearby.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday March 20 2016, @04:46AM
News editors do that all the time. There's only so many reporters and pages you can have, so decisions are made about the relative newsworthiness of one issue over another. The internet allows more content, but there are still limits to how much you can publish.
And yes it's a perfectly reasonable reason to set aside these kinds of junk reports they damage the relationship between celebs and the media without serving the public's interests.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Sunday March 20 2016, @01:36AM
I'm not sure they set out to ruin him. They posted only an excerpt of the tape - specifically excluding the kinda-racist ramblings that other sites eventually posted, which got him fired. If they were specifically trying to ruin him, they would have posted the stuff that made him look bad, not the stuff that looked like any old celebrity sex tape. They seem to have only wanted to get a bunch of pageviews, which is not an evil goal in ipse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 20 2016, @07:57AM
According to the story at Ars, HH was invited to have sex with his friend's wife by his friend. The friend set up a camera to film it, something which HH claims he was not aware of.
I don't know what kind of "friend" tries to convince you to infidelity with his SO, nor do I know what kind of "friend" would tape such an encounter.
But: taping someone who is having sex without his/her knowledge, and then later putting the film online... that's revenge porn territory.
If we take this story as presented, then Gawker is guilty of spreading revenge porn. For clicks.
How much more evil can you get on the internet?
(Score: 5, Funny) by shortscreen on Saturday March 19 2016, @09:13PM
Does this make Hulk Hogan the most highly paid porn star in history?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @09:27PM
Does this make Hulk Hogan the most highly paid porn star in history?
On paper...but not after he pays his legal bills. The lawyers usually are the only ones that make anything in protracted lawsuits like this.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Tork on Saturday March 19 2016, @09:46PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday March 19 2016, @10:23PM
I don't begrudge HH his verdict, but I wonder, this sounds like enough money to sink the entire Gawker ship -- not saying that's bad, just that if it isn't, I'm astounded at how valuable some gossip site can be.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday March 20 2016, @12:10AM
Nick Denton - the founder and CEO of Gawker Media - has stated previously that a 100 Million dollar suit would "Sink Gawker" but IIRC that was before they were purchased by a Russian media mogul, who may step in to save them. They are also appealing the verdict, so it's uncertain if the charges will actually be sustained.
(Score: 4, Informative) by useless on Sunday March 20 2016, @01:12AM
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday March 20 2016, @02:36AM
Ahh, I see. I certainly hope they do not.
I've been trying to stay away from clicking on all of the major news sources in an effort to not let this end up getting Gawker last-minute revenue that might help save them, so your comment is appreciated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 20 2016, @04:39PM
There is insurance for this sort of thing. Their chances of appealing are exactly the same as their chances of securing such insurance. If they do not appeal then the insurers' DD didn't come out so good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @10:30PM
Good for Hulk Hogan. I've been rooting for him the entire time.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 20 2016, @01:21AM
Go listen to the sheriff's tapes from when his son wrecked his supra. Then go look up the stories on the condition the guy who was his passenger was in after he crashed. Then reflect on the fact that he only got less than 6 months in prison for street racing and willfully endangering his passengers life. This is even worse than a drunk driving case because HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. And how often do you hear of non-celbrities getting off with 6 months in jail after crippling someone for life?
Personally I wish this resulted in a larger reimbursement to their family, given that all hogan lost was the trailing edge of an already obscene career, whereas the now ex friend lost the majority of his life.
google 'hulk hogan son crash' for the 411
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 20 2016, @02:03AM
So the sins of the son fall on the father?
If you did the same thing would you expect your father to pick up the bill?
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday March 20 2016, @04:28PM
So the sins of the son fall on the father?
If you did the same thing would you expect your father to pick up the bill?
Why not, if the father is able to use an abnormal amount of influence to mitigate the effects of the son's sins?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 20 2016, @02:09PM
And opposes men marrying girl children.
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.
>Also: see: Deuteronomy chapter 22 verses 28-29, hebrew allows men to rape girl children and keep them: thus man + girl is obviously fine. Feminists are commanded to be killed as anyone enticing others to follow another ruler/judge/god is to be killed as-per Deuteronomy. It is wonderful when this happens from time to time: celebrate)
Also getting with a grown ass woman is probably adultery as she was probably another man's woman whom she sinfully left (women cannot leave the man) or you took from.