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: 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.