Bollea vs. Gawker (again): I do not have a ten inch penis.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Hammer House: Stinger Splash Zone > Bollea vs. Gawker (again): I do not have a ten inch penis.

«‹›34 »

pressedbunny: May 31, 2007; To A Brand New Galaxy

Racist carny slime or not, anybody who thinks it's remotely acceptable to make public very clearly private information or property�be that an address, a phone number, a sex tape, or anything else of the kind�should have a long, hard think about how they would feel if it was their details/videos/whatever being posted by an unrelated, unauthorised third party, to the public at large.

Unless it's a politician misusing public funds or something of similar ilk, there is no excuse. Regardless of whether Hogan knew he was being filmed or not, regardless of whether he's a huge racist or not, and regardless of what he would personally do with such a video, Gawker had absolutely no business whatsoever posting anything about any of it. What is more, they chose to keep it up. This is the hill they wanted to fight and die on.

gently caress them now, gently caress them at appeal, gently caress them forever. Hulk Hogan's >10" penis, no matter who he puts it in and/or what he may say immediately before or after using it, is not a matter of public concern. Tax payers' money is not involved, no nation's security is at risk, and nobody in or running for governing office was involved. Regardless of whether he wanted to release it himself, sell it to a celebrity sex tape website, control which parts of it are seen, or keep it to himself entirely, footage of Hogan porking anyone is not Gawker's property, and it is not "censorship" for Hogan to want them to not post it.

Gawker posting anything about it, without Hogan's prior approval, is categorically wrong, and it's right for the case to have been awarded to Hogan. The man being a famous scumbag does not validate Gawker's actions in any way.

_{(Disclosure: I've previously worked for Gawker Media, as well as two other competing web-based media outlets, and the BBC. I absolutely hated my time with Gawker, and quit after a string of what I considered to be deeply unethical requests and tasks. I can not and will not attempt to hide that seeing them get burned, in any way, makes me happy.)}

# ? Mar 20, 2016 18:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 14:55

RacistGuidingLight: Apr 5, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Y'all can seriously keep posting that D&D style poo poo in the Hulk Hogan Sex Tape thread.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 18:58

new phone who dis: May 24, 2007; by VideoGames; Morbid Hound

Geoff Peterson posted:

Really? Okay. Go for it. Apply the 'public figure, public interest' opinion of this case from Florida's 2nd District Court of Appeals to the Erin Andrews case. I'll do the legwork for you. All that I'm omitting are footnotes and citations (along with their summary), but they can be found at the link. I'm curious to see how you think this fits.

Yup, Gawker has done some very sketchy stuff. "Shames the internet at large for harassing women" is... interesting.... given that I've never felt shamed by Gawker, Jezebel, or Kotaku for harassing women. More interesting is that you seem very, very concerned about censorship. Since you've decided to bring it up in this thread, completely out of nowhere, I feel compelled to ask. Two separate (and superior) courts have determined that Hogan was baselessly attempting to censor Gawker through the use of the legal system regarding this post.Another also determined that Judge Campbell was wrong to enforce the anti-speech position of Hogan's attorneys as it came to making public the records it unsealed(Campbell, judicial saint that she is, decided to try and stall for an additional 6 days knowing that doing so would render the appellate court's ruling moot).

As a passionate, principled, and vociferous anti-censorship and pro-speech advocate, how is it that you fall so eagerly and excitedly on the side of Hogan in this case?

e:

I just don't know how free speech is going to survive clickbait outlets being held financially liable for publishing revenge porn and enabling blackmail. The horror.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 19:59

WeedlordGoku69: Feb 12, 2015; by Cyrano4747

RacistGuidingLight posted:

Y'all can seriously keep posting that D&D style poo poo in the Hulk Hogan Sex Tape thread.

this but unironically

this thread is actually super informative on what the gently caress went on in that case, I like it

# ? Mar 20, 2016 20:07

Google Butt: Oct 4, 2005; Xenology is an unnatural mixture of science fiction and formal logic. At its core is a flawed assumption...

that an alien race would be psychologically human.

wait people are unironically defending gawker releasing a private sex video without permission because he's a public figure? yikes

# ? Mar 20, 2016 20:30

Josuke Higashikata: Mar 7, 2013

Google Butt posted:

wait people are unironically defending gawker releasing a private sex video without permission because he's a public figure? yikes

They're defending it because he's a racist* dickhead and also Hulk Hogan which makes it okay it seems.

The lesser of two evils won out here, and thinking him winning is the better outcome doesn't mean you think he's the best person of all time or even justifiable in his shittiness.

* - The racism that got him fired from the WWE only came out because of the leaked sex tape ironically.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 20:58

dsriggs: May 28, 2012; MONEY FALLS...

...FROM THE SKY...

...WHENEVER HE POSTS!

Geoff Peterson posted:

Yup, Gawker has done some very sketchy stuff. "Shames the internet at large for harassing women" is... interesting....

...so did you just get tired halfway through reading that sentence? Or did you just not understand how hypocrisy is frowned upon by most people?

# ? Mar 20, 2016 21:08

rare Magic card l00k: Jan 3, 2011

Personally I'm happy because A) this will go to appeal since Hogan won, which means this isn't over and we will get more incredible testimony, and B) "Terry Bollea's penis and Hulk Hogan team up to crush Gawker Media" is both entirely accurate of the case at this point and one of the funniest sentences ever written.

If I had the power I would make this case go on into eternity, and long after humanity has died and aliens find our remains, all that is left is Hulk Hogan still testifying about how Terry Bollea and Hulk Hogan have different sized penises.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 21:15

Mob: May 7, 2002; Me reading your posts

tbf it's hard to have tens of thousands of hours invested in researching Media Literacy/Media Law and still also defend Hulk's privacy because he's a shitlord, but at the same time whoaaaa brother I ate too much sushi tonight

# ? Mar 20, 2016 21:15

Mob: May 7, 2002; Me reading your posts

Also if you guys are gonna continually refer to anything under the Gawker umbrella as clickbait do me a favor and subscribe to Uproxx on Facebook/Twitter and see if you can last a whole loving week

# ? Mar 20, 2016 21:17

rare Magic card l00k: Jan 3, 2011

Mob I love you but promoting suicide is a bad thing, and this thread is for good things, like ~~Hulk Hogan~~ Terry Bollea's penis.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 21:19

keevo: Jun 16, 2011; WAKE UP

I wonder how much different this would be if Gawker posted the racist rant instead of the sex tape.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 21:21

Mob: May 7, 2002; Me reading your posts

Great White Hope posted:

Mob I love you but promoting suicide is a bad thing, and this thread is for good things, like ~~Hulk Hogan~~ Terry Bollea's penis.

look man everything sexist in wrestling is bad but Teddy Hart should not have to return to Canada to answer questions about sex crimes because I'm a mark for his cat

# ? Mar 20, 2016 21:21

Teddybear: May 16, 2009; Look! A teddybear doll!
It's soooo cute!

keevo posted:

I wonder how much different this would be if Gawker posted the racist rant instead of the sex tape.

That would likely have been an open and shut case in favor of Gawker.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 21:21

Google Butt: Oct 4, 2005; Xenology is an unnatural mixture of science fiction and formal logic. At its core is a flawed assumption...

that an alien race would be psychologically human.

is there actual scientific evidence in regard to the length and girth or mr. Hogan and mr. Bollea's penises?

# ? Mar 20, 2016 21:26

Shima Honnou: Dec 1, 2010; The Once And Future King Of Dicetroit; College Slice

I'll weigh my opinion on this delicate matter: Hulkamania is running wild forever, brothers!

# ? Mar 20, 2016 21:30

Josuke Higashikata: Mar 7, 2013

When Hulk Hogan drops the leg, it's 1... 2... 3, brother

# ? Mar 20, 2016 21:31

Teddybear: May 16, 2009; Look! A teddybear doll!
It's soooo cute!

Josuke Higashikata posted:

When Hulk Hogan drops the leg, it's 1... 1... 5, brother

fixed it for ya

# ? Mar 20, 2016 21:33

Eleanor Pwnsevelt: Dec 25, 2003

Is it still invasion of privacy when the entire purpose of the tape was to be leaked and seen (Hogan banging his friend's hot wife) so that he could pretend he didn't know he was being filmed and get paid by whoever published it? Asking for a friend.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 22:16

Google Butt: Oct 4, 2005; Xenology is an unnatural mixture of science fiction and formal logic. At its core is a flawed assumption...

that an alien race would be psychologically human.

if that's true hulkster owns

# ? Mar 20, 2016 22:18

Mob: May 7, 2002; Me reading your posts

Eleanor Pwnsevelt posted:

Is it still invasion of privacy when the entire purpose of the tape was to be leaked and seen (Hogan banging his friend's hot wife) so that he could pretend he didn't know he was being filmed and get paid by whoever published it? Asking for a friend.

look pal this thread isn't about the true reason behind anything, stop trying to tell these marks how the sausage is made

# ? Mar 20, 2016 22:19

pressedbunny: May 31, 2007; To A Brand New Galaxy

Eleanor Pwnsevelt posted:

Is it still invasion of privacy when the entire purpose of the tape was to be leaked and seen (Hogan banging his friend's hot wife) so that he could pretend he didn't know he was being filmed and get paid by whoever published it? Asking for a friend.

Yes. There is a gigantic difference between something being intentionally released by its owner under the guise of a 'leak', and an unrelated third party publishing the same material as an actual leak. Hogan has the right to release it or sell it for release as he sees fit; Gawker have zero right to the material, period.

# ? Mar 20, 2016 22:34

RacistGuidingLight: Apr 5, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

pressedbunny posted:

Yes. There is a gigantic difference between something being intentionally released by its owner under the guise of a 'leak', and an unrelated third party publishing the same material as an actual leak. Hogan has the right to release it or sell it for release as he sees fit; Gawker have zero right to the material, period.

http://www.infinitelooper.com/?v=uSUC82Tf4uM&p=n#/156;160

# ? Mar 20, 2016 23:02

Eleanor Pwnsevelt: Dec 25, 2003

pressedbunny posted:

Hogan has the right to release it or sell it for release as he sees fit;

I completely agree. So I want you to read this over and over. Say it out loud if that's what it takes.

Mob posted:

look pal this thread isn't about the true reason behind anything, stop trying to tell these marks how the sausage is made

I think that if Randy Savage had a dying wish...it would be for the world to know what Hogan puts in his sausage.

Eleanor Pwnsevelt fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Mar 20, 2016

# ? Mar 20, 2016 23:30

Big Coffin Hunter: Aug 13, 2005

lmao I go on a road trip and come back to find hogan literally hosed gawker to death

# ? Mar 20, 2016 23:38

Onmi: Jul 12, 2013; If someone says it one more time I'm having Florina show up as a corpse. I'm not even kidding, I was pissed off with people doing that shit back in 2010, and I'm not dealing with it now in 2016.

Big Coffin Hunter posted:

lmao I go on a road trip and come back to find hogan literally hosed gawker to death

You should see Nick Denton having to read one of the articles aloud for cross examination

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xrWDhhInFA&t=5697s

# ? Mar 20, 2016 23:51

Niwrad: Jul 1, 2008

Since AJ was also found personally liable does that mean he would have to pay out of his own pocket toward the judgement? Like would Hulk Hogan be docking his pay for the rest of his life?

# ? Mar 20, 2016 23:57

Geoff Peterson: Jan 1, 2012; by exmarx

LORD OF BUTT posted:

this but unironically

this thread is actually super informative on what the gently caress went on in that case, I like it

Glad someone's getting stuff out of it. I tend to geek out about 1A stuff and Campbell's remarkably petty rear end making the rulings she did leads to all sorts of things that rarely come up getting brought under the spotlight. What we've had so far is the undercard and not even Cena could overcome the odds against Hogan on appeal.

natetimm posted:

I just don't know how free speech is going to survive clickbait outlets being held financially liable for publishing revenge porn and enabling blackmail. The horror.

For what it's worth, I love that you're less inclined to argue for the right of a free press than you are the rights of hundreds of channers not to be insulted for posting nude pictures of a woman online and emailing them to her father with the explicit intent of causing her to commit suicide. That one of your justifications is the outlet in question wrote mean words about those people is surely unrelated to any charming personal beliefs you have and does not expose your deeply held principles as being cudgels to hammer those you disagree with.

Google Butt posted:

wait people are unironically defending gawker releasing a private sex video without permission because he's a public figure? yikes

I mean, it depends on what you mean by "defending". Daulerio should be rendered essentially unemployable by this (and it appears that's case) and if people look poorly upon Gawker for their actions and choose to take their traffic elsewhere (and it appears that's the case), that's wonderful. Their behavior has been deplorable and the post is more-or-less editorially indefensible outside of "post everything", which appears to be the Denton/Daulerio philosophy. Unfortunately, their moral and ethical disgrace is not the same as legal liability... according to every single judge who has issued an opinion on the case.

dsriggs posted:

...so did you just get tired halfway through reading that sentence? Or did you just not understand how hypocrisy is frowned upon by most people?

No, I understand hypocrisy and don't think you'd be able to find me arguing that Gawker isn't scum. Various properties have produced some compelling and quality content, but yeah, it's a scummy place. That doesn't mean every argument against it is valid, like the suggestion in some groups that Gawker/Kotaku wading into the gamergate mess is shaming the internet at large and more generally is a reason to dislike the site.

pressedbunny posted:

Yes. There is a gigantic difference between something being intentionally released by its owner under the guise of a 'leak', and an unrelated third party publishing the same material as an actual leak. Hogan has the right to release it or sell it for release as he sees fit; Gawker have zero right to the material, period.

I'm glad you got out from Gawker. From everything I've heard, it used to be a tremendously poo poo place to work and has gotten only marginally better. Gawker's behavior in deposition and in the initial posting of the video was disgusting. I (and the overwhelming majority of caselaw on the topic) disagree with you on what constitutes a matter of public interest/newsworthiness, but I respect that you've come by your view honestly and your statement is consistent with that. In light of every opinion issued on the case, however, what you've posted above is wrong.

Again, from the 2nd Distrct's pre-trial opinion, who will be hearing Gawker's appeal posted:

However, there is no dispute that Gawker Media was not responsible for the creation of the Sex Tape. Nor has Mr. Bollea alleged that Gawker Media otherwise obtained it unlawfully. The Supreme Court in Bartnicki held that if a publisher lawfully obtains the information in question, the speech is protected by the First Amendment provided it is a matter of public concern, even if the source recorded it unlawfully [...] As the speech in question here is indeed a matter of legitimate public concern, the holding in Bartnicki applies.

In that sense, it's similar to the "selling aborted body parts" videos from last year. The parties involved in the creation of the tapes are facing legal repercussions. The outlets who have aired and distributed them are not. In Hogan's case, the 2nd District already held that it's a matter of public concern-which says many unfortunate things about what the public is concerned about (conceding that I continue to spend chunks of my weekend effortposting about Hulk Hogan's penis in the professional wrestling subforum of a dead gay comedy forum)-so the appeal will likely reinforce that view again. In the meantime, Hogan continues to waste taxpayer money in the courts fighting a losing battle in what the unsealed documents show began as a cynical attempt to keep his racism hidden.

Broadly, Gawker's attorneys are correct that they never had a chance before Campbell, and it's a shame that she's the only one involved in this case who isn't suffering the consequences of their misbehavior. A meaningful state or federal anti-SLAPP law would have slapped this down immediately and saved everyone involved six figures of legal fees (and Campbell no small amount of embarrassment)-but given that it's Gawker and Hogan paying, I find it tough to feel too badly about it.

Hogan, in his words, actions, and appearances demonstrated zero distress from this post until money was on the line. As NYMag notes, this is a man whose extraordinarily lucrative livelihood centered around his ability to convincingly act as though he is in pain. As the unsealed records show, the bulk of any distress he did have was about feeling betrayed by his best friend and the possibility of the racist poo poo he told Heather getting out-as it turns out, he was right to be concerned about that. He placed the value of the invasion of his most intimate privacy at $5,000 for one of the two people he actually had a legal case against, and Campbell inexplicably prevented that from being pursued during trial. If Daulerio and Denton each had to sign a check for the same, I'd call it a pretty solid outcome alongside the legal fees Gawker will never recoup. Hogan could also get the mental health assistance he never bothered to seek.

Everyone involved is poo poo. That one party is shittier than the other doesn't magically change how the justice system in this country works, and doesn't render the jury's verdict any less ridiculous.

Geoff Peterson fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Mar 21, 2016

# ? Mar 21, 2016 00:00

Chris James 2: Aug 9, 2012

Niwrad posted:

Since AJ was also found personally liable does that mean he would have to pay out of his own pocket toward the judgement? Like would Hulk Hogan be docking his pay for the rest of his life?

The ruling was specifically for Gawker, AJ, and someone else. The implication being if the company/series of sites went bankrupt, the money still had to be paid. If they lose the appeal and don't get the money lowered, it's possible both they and he have to individually file for bankruptcy.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 00:02

Mob: May 7, 2002; Me reading your posts

So many people disrespecting Gawker like it was their idea to make Caity eat mozzarella sticks for 8 straight hours

# ? Mar 21, 2016 00:06

Geoff Peterson: Jan 1, 2012; by exmarx

Mob posted:

So many people disrespecting Gawker like it was their idea to make Caity eat mozzarella sticks for 8 straight hours

People do horrific things for extra PTO. And she deserves the suffering she got. What idiot would choose mozzarella sticks for a challenge like that?!

# ? Mar 21, 2016 00:10

RacistGuidingLight: Apr 5, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Onmi posted:

You should see Nick Denton having to read one of the articles aloud for cross examination

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xrWDhhInFA&t=5697s

This is so good.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 00:22

new phone who dis: May 24, 2007; by VideoGames; Morbid Hound

Geoff Peterson posted:

For what it's worth, I love that you're less inclined to argue for the right of a free press than you are the rights of hundreds of channers not to be insulted for posting nude pictures of a woman online and emailing them to her father with the explicit intent of causing her to commit suicide. That one of your justifications is the outlet in question wrote mean words about those people is surely unrelated to any charming personal beliefs you have and does not expose your deeply held principles as being cudgels to hammer those you disagree with.

Yes because I totally said that and you didn't just make this up completely as a strawman to fling yourself against to desperately defend Gawker.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 00:40

FAROOQ: Aug 20, 2014; by Smythe

Geoff Peterson posted:

Did you write the gawker article admitting to domestic violence, or the one that helped out and blackmail a gay man?

# ? Mar 21, 2016 00:49

Timby: Dec 23, 2006; Your mother!

Great White Hope posted:

Personally I'm happy because A) this will go to appeal since Hogan won, which means this isn't over and we will get more incredible testimony

Appellate courts, generally speaking, do not hear new evidence or testimony. They review the process of the lower court's trial and the rulings made by the judge, and each side makes its case that errors were / were not committed. In this case, Gawker is going to argue that Judge Campbell committed a significant error when she essentially ignored the appellate court's ruling regarding the tape's First Amendment worthiness (she granted an injunction against Gawker in favor of Hogan, saying that Gawker needed to take the post down; Gawker immediately appealed and the appeals court overturned her order; Gawker filed for dismissal on those grounds and Judge Campbell refused).

So, no, the appeals process isn't likely to feature anything new or amazing.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 00:50

Jerusalem: May 20, 2004; Would you be my new best friends?

Niwrad posted:

Like would Hulk Hogan be docking his pay for the rest of his life?

I believe the judge's exact words were,"AJ Isentence you to be Hulk Hogan and to consider Terry Bollea as Linda Hogan."

# ? Mar 21, 2016 00:55

Blast Fantasto: Sep 18, 2007; USAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Geoff Peterson posted:

People do horrific things for extra PTO. And she deserves the suffering she got. What idiot would choose mozzarella sticks for a challenge like that?!

Wings would have been the correct choice, obviously.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 01:01

Geoff Peterson: Jan 1, 2012; by exmarx

natetimm posted:

Yes because I totally said that and you didn't just make this up completely as a strawman to fling yourself against to desperately defend Gawker.

We've now left any semblance of the thread topic, but my apologies. I assumed when you brought up shaming the internet at large over harassment of women you were referring to that topic. Which one did you mean?

FAROOQ posted:

Did you write the gawker article admitting to domestic violence, or the one that helped out and blackmail a gay man?

Neither, actually. I'm the author of the floorshitting Chuck Johnson rumor comment that Gawker has refused to identify to the courts. In return for my anonymity, I furiously defend them against libel on SomethingAwfulDotCom by calling them scummy, depraved shitheads. Additionally, Whitlock was wrong-TNC has been too busy with the Black Panther so I'm the one ghostwriting Howard's takedowns of him. I also wrote the Dr. V piece for Grantland-though that may actually raise your opinion of me-and as you can tell from my ponderous and overwrought writing style, I also authored the Holtzclaw piece for Longform.

Blast Fantasto posted:

Wings would have been the correct choice, obviously.

Wings would have been perfectly passable if she was allowed to change up sauces, as would quesadillas or nachos.

Timby posted:

Appellate courts, generally speaking, do not hear new evidence or testimony. They review the process of the lower court's trial and the rulings made by the judge, and each side makes its case that errors were / were not committed. In this case, Gawker is going to argue that Judge Campbell committed a significant error when she essentially ignored the appellate court's ruling regarding the tape's First Amendment worthiness (she granted an injunction against Gawker in favor of Hogan, saying that Gawker needed to take the post down; Gawker immediately appealed and the appeals court overturned her order; Gawker filed for dismissal on those grounds and Judge Campbell refused).

So, no, the appeals process isn't likely to feature anything new or amazing.

Yeah, it appears the main factors will be the 1A question, her unconventional jury instructions, the entire manner in which Bubba's non-testimony was handled, and whatever the content of the many bench conferences were. That she's provided zero legal reasoning for any of these decisions is unlikely to endear her to the appellate court.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 01:32

Chris James 2: Aug 9, 2012

Geoff Peterson posted:

Yeah, it appears the main factors will be the 1A question, her unconventional jury instructions, the entire manner in which Bubba's non-testimony was handled, and whatever the content of the many bench conferences were. That she's provided zero legal reasoning for any of these decisions is unlikely to endear her to the appellate court.

Exactly why I feel Gawker winning the appeal is likely

# ? Mar 21, 2016 01:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 14:55

new phone who dis: May 24, 2007; by VideoGames; Morbid Hound

Geoff Peterson posted:

We've now left any semblance of the thread topic, but my apologies. I assumed when you brought up shaming the internet at large over harassment of women you were referring to that topic. Which one did you mean?

Gawker properties have been spending considerable time and effort outside of that specific issue pushing the idea that the internet is some sort of toxic hellhole for women to farm clicks off of the perpetually offended. Doing that type of poo poo while also posting video of a woman's alleged rape after her objections, airing celebrity sex tapes, and broadcasting the location of female celebrities to the internet at large makes them scumbag hypocrites.

And if you want to talk about that specific issue, some trust fund idiot hipster getting paid to do porn and then getting mortified when her rich daddy finds out is an order of magnitude different than being filmed loving against your will and then having some bottom-feeding tabloid site upload it to the internet to cash in.

# ? Mar 21, 2016 01:40

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Hammer House: Stinger Splash Zone > Bollea vs. Gawker (again): I do not have a ten inch penis.

«‹›34 »