|
fatherdog posted:If Hogan was suing the person who actually recorded the tape and sold it to Gawker, he'd have a much stronger case since that was actually a crime. He's not going to do that, though, because then Thiel wouldn't be paying for it. It seems a very uncontrollable system to me where the standard for something being newsworthy is whether the same organization profiting from disseminating essentially stolen property is running stories about it. It creates a situation where poo poo sites like Gawker can choose to run stories about people's personal lives to ruin them and then cite their own previous reporting as the standard for "newsworthiness" when they start doing even slimier poo poo. "We had previously reported on statements about Hogan's dick, therefore we're entitled to air stolen video of it" is a lovely excuse.
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:This thread used to be funny because it was about Gawker getting bitch-smacked through the legal system and working hard to dig itself deeper into the hole at every turn. Now, this thread is funny because of all the people weeping big sad tears for the end of journalistic freedom because a shitrag magazine that specializes in ruining people in public is being return-hosed by someone they had previously hosed. Woe is freedom of the press! The judge will certainly site Bollea vs. Gawker Media when jailing the next Woodward and Bernstein. I'm not weeping about it; I don't particularly care because A) it's Gawker and B) it's gonna get overturned at the appeal anyway. It's still not a good precedent and when people talk about it without understanding why I'm going to explain it to them, because that is what you do on a thread that is specifically for discussing something. Hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:The national enquirer has actually had at least a handful of big exposes, including rush Limbaughs pill addiction and John Edwards cheating on his wife. I mean it's still in the realm of trashy tabloidism but the Edwards one at the very least was well written and documented So has Gawker. Off the top of my head, they broke the Manti Te'o catfishing, the Brett Favre / Jenn Sterger thing, all the mismanagement going on at The Undefeated, the tape of Ray Rice pounding his girlfriend in the elevator and I think the Donald Sterling recordings.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
http://nypost.com/2016/05/26/gawker-founder-looking-to-sell-after-losing-hogan-judgment/ I highly doubt they think they have a shot in the appeals court.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:Towards that end, the linked opinion is actually super useful-the judge appears to know it'd be widely read by laymen and has written accordingly. Basically-It's gross and sad that we've determined that this is in the public interest, but there's little question that it is from a legal standpoint. And because I know few folks will click on the link, see below (I'm removing most citations, but they're present and linked in the reuters-hosted pdf of the decision). Any emphasis is mine. I'm genuinely curious about this because I don't know the law that well. Wouldn't what you quoted allow any blog or site that claims to be "media" to post Erin Andrews peephole video? Or Jennifer Lawrence's nudes? If the argument is that Hogan talked of his sex life which makes everything in his private bedroom fair game, it seems that should carry on to other celebrities. Jennifer Lawrence has talked about her dating life to the media so her sending nude photos to a boyfriend would certainly be newsworthy by this same definition. And since the stalking of Erin Andrews was a huge story as well as the civil lawsuit, that video is certainly newsworthy by that definition. It's kind of fascinating case to watch play out. I'm all for free press but it's also kind of strange that as long as their is some newsworthiness to a celebrity's dating life, everything they do in the bedroom is fair game to be broadcast around the world as long as the website pretends to be part of the media.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
Another update. Nick Denton posts an Open Letter on Gawker for Peter Thiel basically with "Actions have Consequences" https://www.gawker.com/an-open-letter-to-peter-thiel-1778991227 Peter Thiel on the Observer (the other one, not Big Dave) responds with basically the same comment for the "Gawker Generation" http://observer.com/2016/05/peter-thiels-reminder-to-the-gawker-generation-actions-have-consequences/ Never end.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Onmi posted:http://nypost.com/2016/05/26/gawker-founder-looking-to-sell-after-losing-hogan-judgment/ Part of the issue is in order to appeal it they have to throw down a 50 million dollar bond. They have to pony up that up front.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Onmi posted:http://nypost.com/2016/05/26/gawker-founder-looking-to-sell-after-losing-hogan-judgment/ From your own article posted:“We’ve always said we expect to prevail on appeal and we’ve always said we’re exploring contingency plans of various sorts,” a Gawker spokesman said. The court hearing the appeal has already ruled in Gawker's favor repeatedly, and has expressed their displeasure with Campbell (the trial judge) in a variety of fun and passive aggressive ways. For once, Gawker's being honest in their quote. Mr. Nice! posted:Part of the issue is in order to appeal it they have to throw down a 50 million dollar bond. They have to pony up that up front. Niwrad posted:I'm genuinely curious about this because I don't know the law that well. Wouldn't what you quoted allow any blog or site that claims to be "media" to post Erin Andrews peephole video? Or Jennifer Lawrence's nudes? If the argument is that Hogan talked of his sex life which makes everything in his private bedroom fair game, it seems that should carry on to other celebrities. Jennifer Lawrence has talked about her dating life to the media so her sending nude photos to a boyfriend would certainly be newsworthy by this same definition. And since the stalking of Erin Andrews was a huge story as well as the civil lawsuit, that video is certainly newsworthy by that definition.  incoming-hopefully I'm already on your ignore list if this isn't why you read the thread  Also for the umpteenth time: IANALA distinction (that I think you've overlooked in good faith, as opposed to some others itt): Erin Andrews didn't sue anyone for distributing or publishing the video-but rather the piece of poo poo who took the video and the hotel chain that facilitated its creation. Hogan would have had a substantial case against Bubba-especially in light of the racist rants damaging his career-and instead chose to settle for a negligible sum (and modifications to Bubba's story). As it turns out, that's likely because Thiel was disinterested in funding lawsuits against Bubba. Past that, this is all on a continuum. Hogan has repeatedly discussed his sex life and his affairs in great detail... discussing and displaying his sex life is one of his top post-wrestling sources of notoriety and revenue. He had also made repeated public appearances to discuss this exact tape, and excerpts/images from it. "How Erin Andrews looks nude" is not a major factor in her career or her public image. I've not seen any of the video/images involved, but much as TMZ and even deadtrees showed images or clips from the Hogan tape, they'd likely be able to do the same with the Andrews video. Any nude segments (I haven't seen the video, I assume there is some non-nude or censorable footage) would be more likely to generate public outrage than Hogan's tape (in that Hogan's a Public Figure through his own doing as it comes to affairs/sexuality/etc, whereas Andrews is not), and she probably has at least enough of a case to get a trial in a courtroom outside of Campbell's. The Fappening is different for the reason that Hogan argued Michaels (the third quote from my post)-if you're posting an uncensored image ("In a news report"), is it a small excerpt of the overall leak or the entirety of an image? The courts allowed the Gawker posts to stay up because they were a few minutes of a half hour long video. I don't know if that same standard applies to 1 uncensored image out of 100. Niwrad posted:It's kind of fascinating case to watch play out. I'm all for free press but it's also kind of strange that as long as their is some newsworthiness to a celebrity's dating life, everything they do in the bedroom is fair game to be broadcast around the world as long as the website pretends to be part of the media. There's a read from some folks that this allows for Revenge Porn and as such is bad. I think that's incorrect (and especially disingenuous from those folks who have advocated for or tolerated Revenge Porn in other contexts), in part because of the celebrity nature of things. I think the second quote from my post is helpful as far as newsworthiness in that it's a balancing act. "Despite Mr. Bollea's public persona, we do not suggest that every aspect of his private life is a subject of public concern." I think there's a difference between Hogan and JLaw (or Erin Andrews) in the extent to which they've made their sex life a public concern-so I don't know that ruling against Hogan opens the floodgates for all celeb sextapes. On the other hand, upholding the judgement has other effects- I've used the example of Mayweather and domestic violence upthread. You can probably include Gawker Media's reporting on Greg Hardy as well (what if in addition to paying/intimidating the victim out of testifying, he'd included having her sue Deadspin because their reporting violates her privacy?). Or in a more ridiculous case, the Chuck Johnson suit. We can look across the pond for what happened when celebrities and politicians could use the threat of ruinous judgement to censor the media. In America, I'd wager most of the names in pedogate would have become public long before they did in the UK... and I think most of the arguments Hogan's using could have been used by R. Kelly.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Everyone is up in arms about Thiel funding Hogan, but the bottom line is Hulk could have paid the legal fees himself and probably would have if Thiel hadn't done so. It's not like he's destitute. Gawker was getting sued regardless.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
I like Gawker. It's a fun read sometimes.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Everyone is up in arms about Thiel funding Hogan, but the bottom line is Hulk could have paid the legal fees himself and probably would have if Thiel hadn't done so. It's not like he's destitute. Gawker was getting sued regardless. I sincerely doubt Hogan could risk the (likely multiple) million in fees that this case has racked up. That leaves Harder(?) or another attorney taking the case in exchange for a portion of eventual damages. Were that the arrangement, it's unlikely they would have made it this far - instead cutting their losses and/or taking settlement after one of the earlier rejections. Certainly, they wouldn't have modified the case to exclude insurance payouts. The others suing Gawker certainly couldn't afford it without outside help -especially as email guy has no case whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:I sincerely doubt Hogan could risk the (likely multiple) million in fees that this case has racked up. That leaves Harder(?) or another attorney taking the case in exchange for a portion of eventual damages. Were that the arrangement, it's unlikely they would have made it this far - instead cutting their losses and/or taking settlement after one of the earlier rejections. Certainly, they wouldn't have modified the case to exclude insurance payouts. The others suing Gawker certainly couldn't afford it without outside help -especially as email guy has no case whatsoever. So in short, Gawkers argument is "We totally would have gotten away with if it only our victims couldn't afford to actually call us on our bullshit." Gonna level with you Geoff but the guy suing you having the cash to do so, if even from outside sources, isn't illegal. The facts in the case itself are what are going to be debated. If the argument is going to be that Hulk would never have been able to take it this far without backing, then that does nothing to disprove the actual facts of the case. It's a moot point. All the funding does is enable to court case to happen. But as I said before, It's a very interesting way to muddy the waters, and distract from the fact that they do not actually have a defense against the facts of the case. Still, can't wait for the appeal, especially with Denton going "The details of your involvement will be gruesome' if you continue suing us" because apparently someone on his legal team has neat taped his mouth shut or told him to shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Onmi posted:Another update. Nick Denton posts an Open Letter on Gawker for Peter Thiel basically with "Actions have Consequences" I love how Gawker are such huge assholes in every way that they simply can't help but make themselves look worse at every turn, even when they're up against an openly racist old carny bankrolled by a Silicon Valley billionaire who is a bottomless douchebottle. How is Denton so stupid that he doesn't know to shut up about an ongoing court case? That by itself makes him come across as an incredible rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
regardless of how this shakes out I hope Denton and Theil continue this slap fight publicly now that Theils master plan is public
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
oatgan posted:regardless of how this shakes out I hope Denton and Theil continue this slap fight publicly now that Theils master plan is public Denton vs. Thiel at
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:I love how Gawker are such huge assholes in every way that they simply can't help but make themselves look worse at every turn, even when they're up against an openly racist old carny bankrolled by a Silicon Valley billionaire who is a bottomless douchebottle. Read the article. He wants a public discourse with Thiel who he is not currently engaged in a suit with - at least formally.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Onmi posted:Still, can't wait for the appeal, especially with Denton going "The details of your involvement will be gruesome' if you continue suing us" because apparently someone on his legal team has neat taped his mouth shut or told him to shut the gently caress up. I hope his lawyers got paid up front.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
They should engage in dueling, the noble way of settling differences.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
There's some irony in folks who were pissed at Gawker doing something scummy, yet not illegal, having seemingly no issue with what Thiel is doing.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Sooner or later everyone becomes a pawn for the rich
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
this is like when the million dollar man hired andre to beat hulk 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Must be fun to be rich and throw money away on fun things like endless lawsuits.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
BlueArmyMan posted:Sooner or later everyone becomes a pawn for the rich Every man has a price
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/735674238565273601
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
while that would be cool I think prefer money fights in courtrooms while hogan flexes in the corner and yells
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Gawker linking with Omidyar/First Look Media is the least surprising news ever considering that Alex Parenne and John Cook worked for both and Gawker's relationship with Glenn Greenwald.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Mercury Crusader posted:Must be fun to be rich and throw money away on fun things like endless lawsuits. better than that Oracle dummy and his stupid boat races
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Wasn't The Intercept the site that had a guy just making up stories?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
I, for one, welcome this new world where billionaires choose their champions to fight on the (courtroom) battlefield. Trial by combat is the only true justice.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Charles Gnarwin posted:I, for one, welcome this new world where billionaires choose their champions to fight on the (courtroom) battlefield. Trial by combat is the only true justice. Put em in the squared circle brother
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
This is the more important legal battle https://twitter.com/PabstBlueRibbon/status/736305632815554561
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Mercury Crusader posted:Must be fun to be rich and throw money away on fun things like endless lawsuits.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Billionaires using Hulk Hogan's dong to settle rivalries is surely the best use of millions upon millions of dollars.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Hogan/Cena vs. Gawker/PBR on PPV this Sunday at the Dallas Courtatorium
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:[url=http://nypost.com/2016/05/27/ebay-founder-backing-gawkers-appeal-of-hulk-sex-tape-verdict/] 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Die!!!! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
Gawker lost the motion for a stay and has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:10
|
|