Its funny, because the wikipedia article says the opposite:
In April 2013, Gawker wrote, "A judge told us to take down our Hulk Hogan sex tape post. We won't." It also stated that "we are refusing to comply" with the order of the circuit court judge.
> A Pinellas County Judge, Pamela A.M. Campbell issued an order Wednesday directing Gawker to remove a video of Hogan (real name Terry Bollea) purportedly having sex with the ex-wife of a disc jockey named "Bubba the Love Sponge" Clem, as well as a 1,400-word narrative about the tape and hundreds of user-submitted comments.
> The site did take down the video, but the narrative and comments remain on the site with the website's attorney, Gregg Thomas saying the order to remove that material infringes on the website's First Amendment rights.
So, yes, the video was taken down. No, the post concerning the video was not, despite the court order to do so.
I believe "Hulk Hogan sex tape post" refers to the latter commentary post, not the actual video.
>A lawful order from a circuit court judge is a serious thing. While we vehemently disagree with Campbell's order with respect to the video itself, we have chosen to take it down pending our appeal.
From your own link, which you clearly didn't bother to read even after I pointed out that it contradicts what you said.
What is your calculus? "Hulk Hogan" is a brand that has been around for almost 40 years. The release of the video ruined it; he was fired from the WWE. I don't know what the real number is, but significant value was lost.
According to the article, the portion of the tape that caused his firing was not included in the Gawker article.
"Bollea's reputation took a huge hit last year, and he got fired from his job at World Wrestling Entertainment. That outcome wasn't fallout from the Gawker article, however. In a section of the sex tape that could be described as "pillow talk" (which wasn't published by Gawker), Bollea went on a racist diatribe. He repeatedly used the N-word and other racial insults, expressing disappointment that his daughter was in a relationship with a black man. The racial epithets were leaked by other news sites, including Radar Online and the National Enquirer."
What I'd like to know is, would a sum like that be handed to someone who wasn't a celebrity? Seems a little plutocratic to me.
[edit] Another comment here splits the judgement into $50m economic harm and $65m emotional distress. I'm not arguing against the first figure, obviously a celebrity has more money and earning potential that is capable of being harmed. But I don't think they're capable of being distressed any more than the next person.
A celebreity's sex tape is going to get much wider viewing than some random person's. Your typical person wouldn't be walking down the street and have everyone recognize them and think of their sex tape even if it was on the Internet.
Yup, that's an extra $15 million. Serves them right. I'll bet all the staffers who made crude jokes and laughed at a guy having consensual sex with someone in what they thought was a private, intimate act wouldn't be very happy if the same was done to them.
This whole argument that public people don't have ANY right to privacy is utterly absurd, and Gawker have been very much been brought down to earth - hard. And funnily enough, thought I cant stand the man - they've been super critical of a variety of unethical and outrageous things Trump has said and done. But Trump hasn't ever published a sex tape, and defied a court order to remove it!
The 1st Amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT, not from INDIVIDUALS. Bollea was forced to leave the WWE, and his brand was damaged as a result of this action. He suffered real monetary loss. This is literally an example of the textbook definition of defamation, which in CIVIL cases, the first amendment does not protect.
You are not allowed to say harmful or malicious things about another person that has the potential to cause damage to their reputation.
In order for something to be defamation it has to be a false statement. No one has accused Gawker of saying anything untrue.
So no, this is not a textbook example of defamation.
You're also confused about the scope of the 1st amendment. It applies in civil cases. I'm not sure why you would think it doesn't. See, for example Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell for a famous example. The trial was a central plot point in a major motion picture!
Bringing up the Falwell vs. Flynt was more about protecting parody. Very few people would have taken seriously the idea that Falwell would run an ad in Hustler magazine, it was clearly satire. In this case, however, the information was recorded without the other's party's notice. I'd have to look up the laws in California, but I know in NYS, we have to inform the other party when we are recording are the conversation. In this case, it's the right to privacy vs. freedom of speech. The argument that since a person is a celebrity he does not have privscy rights never made sense. He is entitled to his privacy as much as the rest of us.
"The 1st Amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT, not from INDIVIDUALS."
I was merely pointing out that this statement is wrong. The 1st amendment does protect defendants in civil trials. In this case it was found (rightly or wrongly) that Hulk's right to privacy outweighed Gawker's freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the 1st didn't apply at all. It simply means it lost this time.
It doesn't even mean that celebrity's rights to privacy will always outweigh freedom of speech. I'm sure that TMZ prints stuff every single day that celebrities would prefer to remain private and you don't see them losing lawsuits very often.
This was a very particular case right on the edge of the line. And, by the way, it will certainly be appealed and Gawker could very well win in a higher court.
>How different is this from Snowden giving top secret documents to Greenwald et al?
The United States has different classifications of laws: criminal and civil. Snowden's case is considered criminal. He was also reporting on massive civil violations the US was (and is committing) against people. That definitely is a free speech case.
Hulk vs Gawker is a civil case. Libel and slander are not protected.
IMO, sharing the Hulk Hogan tape (where he might have been filmed without his consent) is logically equivalent to sharing the Erin Andrews video where she was filmed in a hotel room without her consent.
Would Gawker have been crucified if they had published that video and bragged about it? Why is the Hulk Hogan case being treated differently by people?
> That said, the most damning item isn't that they posted the video
This might be true from a legal standpoint, but from a practical/moral one I think that is the most damning thing. I can't recall of any other time a major news publication put tapes about anyone's private life and snarkily tried to push it as news.
Even more:
> On March 7, 2016, after a two week trial, the jury awarded Erin Andrews $55 million in her civil lawsuit over the secret recording and release of a video showing her naked during a hotel stay.[38]
Well, to answer your question literally, some differences are
- The Andrews suit was against the people responsible for the recording while the Gawker suit is against the people who posted the video
- as a public figure Hulk Hogan has often discussed his sex life whereas Andrews has never made that part of her public life
- Andrews clearly had no knowledge of the tape. Hulk Hogan claims he didn't either though that fact is somewhat disputed.
Apparently, Hogan made some racist comments in parts of the video that Gawker did not post and those comments have hurt Hogan's career. It did not seem like the part Gawker posted had affected his career much either way before that, though it is hard to assess emotional distress. In Andrews' case, the emotional distress argument is much compelling in my opinion. Her job as a sports reporter involves constant travel and she now feels much less safe staying at hotels knowing that she has stalkers following her and hotel staff that are willing to help those stalkers get close to her.
I was a regular Gawker reader for a while, their salacious stories are hard to resist. Eventually I realized they were crossing lines, both in their aggressive attacks toward individuals who didn't really deserve it and their general preference for sexy headlines and clicks over actual stories and reporting. If this really does bring down Gawker I will consider Hulk Hogan one of the great heroes of our generation. Hopefully it will cause other "news" outlets to step a little more carefully in regards to casually ruining someone's life.
Specifically: the heroism of Hogan sleeping with his best friend's wife while being secretly videotaped by his best friend, then suing the company that published excerpts from the video and winning in court - admiration for that should overwhelm his casual racism?
I think saying that he's a hero for hopefully taking down Gawker was meant as hyperbole, because Gawker is awful. Hogan was simply acting in his own interest at all times.
Half the people I know make racist or sexist remarks when they believe they are in a private setting. That doesn't mean they are going to do it in public or would take it any further than those private utterances.
Yup. After Jalopnik pushed photos of ISIS burning someone alive into my RSS feed with no content warning, I was done and removed every Gawker property I followed. One, it had nothing to do with cars, and two, at least give me some warning before seeing something like that.
Then they outed Conde Nast's CFO, which was a pretty terrible thing to do all around.
Frankly, I've found much of their content to be really inferior quality compared to other sites that are less interested in being first to post. At least the sites I followed I was able to replace with better, less sensational sources.
I'm a bit confused why people are taking the side of Hulk Hogan. Maybe the dislike of gossip news is blinding people to the larger free speech implications.
Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person?
Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent?
Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were initially obtained illegally but were given to the publication? (see wikileaks…etc)
If you answered 'yes' to all 3, what principals (or ideally…laws) let you side with Hulk Hogan?
At the end of the day I am forced to agree with you. Is the publication of this content morally wrong? Yes. Are the publishers pieces of shit for doing this? Yes. Is what they did illegal? Unless they committed a crime to obtain the content, I would have to say no.
>Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person?
Yes.
>Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent?
Depends. Is it important that other people know these facts, as in "will they be harmed/make bad decisions if they don't know them"? (Think knowledge about a politician.)
>Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were initially obtained illegally but were given to the publication? (see wikileaks…etc)
There's a massive difference between wikileaks who report on human rights violations of governments and Gawker posting a sex tape with the intent of ruining a person's life.
I don't think a publication should be allowed to publish intimate facts about a person without their consent, if there is no greater good at stake.
This includes irrelevant sextapes.
Also if there is a greater good at stake (for example the security of a nation) its questionable if the public needs to have access to every intimate detail, that often just contribute to humiliating the person in question.
Because this is a civil case, that's why.
The government has does nothing to Gawker. No one has been censored, illegally detained, or made to vanish. That is what free speech is about: ensuring the government cannot censor or retaliate against you for publishing an piece of work that criticizes the government.
In civil cases, freedom of speech does not cover defamation of character (libel and slander). I think publishing someone's sex tape could definitely harm their reputation, which is what free speech does NOT protect.
Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that are in the public interest?
Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were obtained illegally but were given to the publication, and that are in the public interest?
Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent, when it is in the public interest?
Yes, I do. But you shouldn't be able to photograph me in my own home whilst I'm naked and having a shower, and certainly not without my consent. Nor should you be able to do this to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
Nor should you be allowed to make these photos by breaking into my house and installing a miniature camera in my bathroom.
That's not how defamation works. The Hogan case hinged on him being able to demonstrate that gawker harmed his ability to continue to make money. The jury decided that there was material harm. And, perhaps the judge threw the book at them due to their arrogance: refusing to obey a court order to take down the offending material and making flippant comments about child porn.
depends on what "publish facts" means. if you're being vague enough that privacy effectively ceases to exist, then no. you'll need to be a bit more clear and specific on what this means.
68 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 151 ms ] threadThey are absolute scum. And then to be such hypocrites about the fappening. Good riddance to such rubbish.
1 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...
One would think someone would read posts before citing them as a source, and notice if it actually says the opposite.
In April 2013, Gawker wrote, "A judge told us to take down our Hulk Hogan sex tape post. We won't." It also stated that "we are refusing to comply" with the order of the circuit court judge.
And so does the archived version of the page.
> A Pinellas County Judge, Pamela A.M. Campbell issued an order Wednesday directing Gawker to remove a video of Hogan (real name Terry Bollea) purportedly having sex with the ex-wife of a disc jockey named "Bubba the Love Sponge" Clem, as well as a 1,400-word narrative about the tape and hundreds of user-submitted comments.
> The site did take down the video, but the narrative and comments remain on the site with the website's attorney, Gregg Thomas saying the order to remove that material infringes on the website's First Amendment rights.
So, yes, the video was taken down. No, the post concerning the video was not, despite the court order to do so.
I believe "Hulk Hogan sex tape post" refers to the latter commentary post, not the actual video.
From your own link, which you clearly didn't bother to read even after I pointed out that it contradicts what you said.
What is your calculus? "Hulk Hogan" is a brand that has been around for almost 40 years. The release of the video ruined it; he was fired from the WWE. I don't know what the real number is, but significant value was lost.
"Bollea's reputation took a huge hit last year, and he got fired from his job at World Wrestling Entertainment. That outcome wasn't fallout from the Gawker article, however. In a section of the sex tape that could be described as "pillow talk" (which wasn't published by Gawker), Bollea went on a racist diatribe. He repeatedly used the N-word and other racial insults, expressing disappointment that his daughter was in a relationship with a black man. The racial epithets were leaked by other news sites, including Radar Online and the National Enquirer."
[edit] Another comment here splits the judgement into $50m economic harm and $65m emotional distress. I'm not arguing against the first figure, obviously a celebrity has more money and earning potential that is capable of being harmed. But I don't think they're capable of being distressed any more than the next person.
Oh and with an added contempt of court: a Judge ordered them to take it down and they refused
Not just that: a Judge ordered them to take it down and they published an article bragging about their refusal.
This whole argument that public people don't have ANY right to privacy is utterly absurd, and Gawker have been very much been brought down to earth - hard. And funnily enough, thought I cant stand the man - they've been super critical of a variety of unethical and outrageous things Trump has said and done. But Trump hasn't ever published a sex tape, and defied a court order to remove it!
It's the "compelling news interest" so I think it falls under the First Amendment for Gawker.
I wouldn't be surprised it'll be overturned on appeal.
But Florida does require a bond to be put up and it's significant. This might hamstring Gawker while they go through the appeals process.
"In the public interest" != "what the public is interested in".
Hence news interest in that area. It's distasteful but I prefer the 1A protect as much as possible before the govt or courts tries to narrow it down.
You are not allowed to say harmful or malicious things about another person that has the potential to cause damage to their reputation.
So no, this is not a textbook example of defamation.
You're also confused about the scope of the 1st amendment. It applies in civil cases. I'm not sure why you would think it doesn't. See, for example Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell for a famous example. The trial was a central plot point in a major motion picture!
Bringing up the Falwell vs. Flynt was more about protecting parody. Very few people would have taken seriously the idea that Falwell would run an ad in Hustler magazine, it was clearly satire. In this case, however, the information was recorded without the other's party's notice. I'd have to look up the laws in California, but I know in NYS, we have to inform the other party when we are recording are the conversation. In this case, it's the right to privacy vs. freedom of speech. The argument that since a person is a celebrity he does not have privscy rights never made sense. He is entitled to his privacy as much as the rest of us.
"The 1st Amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT, not from INDIVIDUALS."
I was merely pointing out that this statement is wrong. The 1st amendment does protect defendants in civil trials. In this case it was found (rightly or wrongly) that Hulk's right to privacy outweighed Gawker's freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the 1st didn't apply at all. It simply means it lost this time.
It doesn't even mean that celebrity's rights to privacy will always outweigh freedom of speech. I'm sure that TMZ prints stuff every single day that celebrities would prefer to remain private and you don't see them losing lawsuits very often.
This was a very particular case right on the edge of the line. And, by the way, it will certainly be appealed and Gawker could very well win in a higher court.
1. Snowden didn't reveal somebody's private information, but information about the abuses of a government agency.
2. There's a compelling public interest in making sure government agencies don't abuse their power. Not so with private sex tapes.
The United States has different classifications of laws: criminal and civil. Snowden's case is considered criminal. He was also reporting on massive civil violations the US was (and is committing) against people. That definitely is a free speech case.
Hulk vs Gawker is a civil case. Libel and slander are not protected.
Would Gawker have been crucified if they had published that video and bragged about it? Why is the Hulk Hogan case being treated differently by people?
That said, the most damning item isn't that they posted the video. It's that they violated a court order to take it down.
This might be true from a legal standpoint, but from a practical/moral one I think that is the most damning thing. I can't recall of any other time a major news publication put tapes about anyone's private life and snarkily tried to push it as news.
I would hope so.
Also interesting: http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/04/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-jury...
A judge ruled Friday in St. Petersburg, Florida, that Hogan's legal team won't be able to cite Andrews' ongoing case in his defense.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Andrews
I'm confused as to what the difference between these 2 cases are?
- The Andrews suit was against the people responsible for the recording while the Gawker suit is against the people who posted the video
- as a public figure Hulk Hogan has often discussed his sex life whereas Andrews has never made that part of her public life
- Andrews clearly had no knowledge of the tape. Hulk Hogan claims he didn't either though that fact is somewhat disputed.
Apparently, Hogan made some racist comments in parts of the video that Gawker did not post and those comments have hurt Hogan's career. It did not seem like the part Gawker posted had affected his career much either way before that, though it is hard to assess emotional distress. In Andrews' case, the emotional distress argument is much compelling in my opinion. Her job as a sports reporter involves constant travel and she now feels much less safe staying at hotels knowing that she has stalkers following her and hotel staff that are willing to help those stalkers get close to her.
Going further than that, this judgement may be useful in determining how future, similar acts are treated by the courts.
I could go there to get good recommendations for books, SF, fantasy, fiction in general.
It has really changed in the last year or so, and even more since its fusion with gizmodo.
Distribute the sex tape then make you earn 115 millions.
Besides, you can honor an act without endorsing the entirety of the person. Lovecraft was an amazing writer and also a frothing racist.
I think saying that he's a hero for hopefully taking down Gawker was meant as hyperbole, because Gawker is awful. Hogan was simply acting in his own interest at all times.
Then they outed Conde Nast's CFO, which was a pretty terrible thing to do all around.
Frankly, I've found much of their content to be really inferior quality compared to other sites that are less interested in being first to post. At least the sites I followed I was able to replace with better, less sensational sources.
Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person?
Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent?
Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were initially obtained illegally but were given to the publication? (see wikileaks…etc)
If you answered 'yes' to all 3, what principals (or ideally…laws) let you side with Hulk Hogan?
Yes.
>Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent?
Depends. Is it important that other people know these facts, as in "will they be harmed/make bad decisions if they don't know them"? (Think knowledge about a politician.)
>Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were initially obtained illegally but were given to the publication? (see wikileaks…etc)
See question two.
This includes irrelevant sextapes.
Also if there is a greater good at stake (for example the security of a nation) its questionable if the public needs to have access to every intimate detail, that often just contribute to humiliating the person in question.
In civil cases, freedom of speech does not cover defamation of character (libel and slander). I think publishing someone's sex tape could definitely harm their reputation, which is what free speech does NOT protect.
Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/
Let's rephrase this:
Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that are in the public interest?
Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were obtained illegally but were given to the publication, and that are in the public interest?
Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent, when it is in the public interest?
Yes, I do. But you shouldn't be able to photograph me in my own home whilst I'm naked and having a shower, and certainly not without my consent. Nor should you be able to do this to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
Nor should you be allowed to make these photos by breaking into my house and installing a miniature camera in my bathroom.
Did you intend the implication that, if I had your consent, I probably still shouldn't be able to photograph you in the shower?