|
After boring videos about gawker media ads and revenue,now there's video deposition from a sex tape broker and they're talking about the Verne Troyer sex tape and Chyna
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 03:11 |
|
|
GeneX posted:"quantum penis" Dr. Seth Rollins never returned home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
Right now Hogan's team is adding gawker articles and emails sent to writers to take articles down. Daulario is a stupid idiot. He sent "blah blah blah" to a girl trying to get a video taken down. Edit: the email read is recounted in this article near the around the end http://www.gq.com/story/aj-daulerio-deadspin-brett-favre-story quote:Perhaps Daulerio's darkest moment came last spring, when he posted a video of an obviously drunk college girl having sex in a bathroom stall at a sports bar in Bloomington, Indiana. At the time, he was thinking of it as part of a series on fans having sex in bathrooms. (In the fall of 2009, he'd posted a clip of a couple getting it on in a stall at the new Cowboys Stadium.) On May 11, a few days after the video went up, Daulerio received an e-mail from a woman imploring him to take it down. "I know the people in it and it is extreemly [sic] hurtful. please, this is completely unfair," she wrote. In separate responses, both Daulerio and Darbyshire, the Gawker lawyer, refused to comply. "Best advice I can give you right now: do not make a big deal out of this because, as you can tell, the footage is blurry and you are not identified by name," Daulerio wrote, assuming the e-mailer was the girl herself. Miching Mallecho fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Mar 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Miching Mallecho posted:Right now Hogan's team is adding gawker articles and emails sent to writers to take articles down. Daulario is a stupid idiot. He sent "blah blah blah" to a girl trying to get a video taken down. Jesus he's a nasty piece of work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
that was deadspin 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Super No Vacancy posted:that was deadspin Gawker owns Deadspin
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Miching Mallecho posted:Right now Hogan's team is adding gawker articles and emails sent to writers to take articles down. Daulario is a stupid idiot. He sent "blah blah blah" to a girl trying to get a video taken down. *whoever
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
This honestly seems really cut and dry, there's no way Gawker wins this right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
do a lot of cut and dry issues have highly publicized trials by jury
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:This honestly seems really cut and dry, there's no way Gawker wins this right? Technically the odds were in Hogan's favor in the lower courts, but it'll probably get reduced or tossed on appeal. The problem is that if Hogan gets anywhere close to what he wants, that will severely hurt Gawker. Even if they appeal, Gawker has to basically move the judgment into escrow and they're still kind of screwed. Super No Vacancy posted:do a lot of cut and dry issues have highly publicized trials by jury Yes, especially if the victim is a pretty, white, and female.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
So will Gawker be just utterly out of business or will some other news corp snap up the name and use it as some web publication arm of it's own business?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
The writers would continue their exodus that began with the whole conde nast debacle last year. I figure that some of the more popular assets would get snatched and used as for their names. Don't know why anyone would have interest in buying Gizmodo or Lifehacker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
I think perhaps you guys are confused. Even if gawker is liable for damages I suspect that they will not be liable for one hundred million dollareenos of damage for showing hulk Hogan's rodnus or whatever
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
david carmichael posted:I think perhaps you guys are confused. Even if gawker is liable for damages I suspect that they will not be liable for one hundred million dollareenos of damage for showing hulk Hogan's rodnus or whatever gawker said that they had only $100k in revenue in 2012 during testimony today. denton sold a percentage in order to fund this lawsuit. i don't think hulk would get awarded the full $100m but it's entirely realistic that even an mid 8 figure judgment will force them to close up shop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Like hulks life time earnings might be on the order of 100 million, but if you look at his 10, 5, 1 year earnings prior to the illegal rodnus showing you will get a better sense of what he will get if they are found liable. Maybe he was still making 10 mil a year. I'd be surprised but I don't follow his careeer
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
he probably got a lot of money from that mysterious deal with that saudis
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
The clip gawker uploaded had zero effect on hulk hogan's future earnings. The thing that sunk hulk was the racism which they never proved gawker leaked
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
oatgan posted:The clip gawker uploaded had zero effect on hulk hogan's future earnings. The thing that sunk hulk was the racism which they never proved gawker leaked The Marriott defense. Is Daulerio just a sociopath? The video was a borderline rape if I remember correct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:The Marriott defense. i don't think you can directly relate the andrews case to this one because of the anonymity of the leak to gawker and the anonymity of the racist leak. plus there is the first amendment implications. daulerio's been known for about a decade as a really sleezy/sketch dude in the nyc journalism community. in general, it seems that a lot of folks go "oh that's aj" through the years. he also has done poo poo tons of drugs so he might have fried himself. the positive of this is we got a video of him attempting to recreate the dock ellis no-no on xbox after taking acid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
i'm also real interested to see what kind of poo poo is going on in bubba's deposition monday since they're trying to pull it from the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
oatgan posted:The clip gawker uploaded had zero effect on hulk hogan's future earnings. The thing that sunk hulk was the racism which they never proved gawker leaked But is 10 inch dick haver Hulk Hogan the racist, or the unspecified shorter than 10 inch dick haver Terry Bollea the racist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
NotQuiteQuentin posted:i don't think you can directly relate the andrews case to this one because of the anonymity of the leak to gawker and the anonymity of the racist leak. plus there is the first amendment implications. Aren't they similar though? Both were recorded without their knowledge and dispersed online. I'm still confused on the 1st Amendment stuff. Who has the better case? On one hand I sort of understand the newsworthiness of this stuff and how illegally recorded videos can play a role. On the other, it seems hosed up you can record someone naked in private and publish it online. Like the NY Times could publish the Erin Andrews tape and claim it's news? Doesn't that essentially legalize all revenge porn? I don't really care for either side in this story but I do think it's a fascinating case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:Aren't they similar though? Both were recorded without their knowledge and dispersed online. Gawker's argument is that because Hogan introduced discussion of his sex life into the public consciousness, it becomes fair game to publish something pertaining to that and protected under the 1st Amendment. Hogan's argument is that because it was recorded and distributed without his knowledge or consent, it's a violation of privacy and hence not protected under the 1st Amendment. IANAL but that's the gist of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
A media outlet distributing illegally obtained information is presumed to be protected in doing so as long as the content is of or relating to the public interest. This holds true even in the event the publisher had some interaction with or knowledge of the person that originally unlawfully obtained the information, so long as they themselves did not commit any criminal acts. Also it is probably material that the information in question is presented fully and in proper context. Gawker's argument is that Hulk Hogan's sex tape is of or relating to the public interest and that they posted it because it was newsworthy. I don't remember how much they edited it but it was a lot. Like they turned 30 minutes of footage into 50 seconds of talking and 10 seconds of sex or something. I don't remember. And then there was an essay saying wow we Americans love watching celebrities have sex even though it is always more normal and practical than you might imagine. I think there is a distinction between the Erin Andrews tape and the Hogan tape but I don't think it's been enunciated in the law? Probably expectation of privacy factors into it; the purpose of a private hotel room is that you expect it to be private whereas Hogan cannot expect the same amount of privacy in someone else's home. I dunno if Clem knew about the camera but if so then her consenting to it being taped would also factor into this. Footage of a woman doing mundane things in a hotel would seem to have no public value other than the prurient interest; a celebrity famous for a reality show with his wife and children shown having sex with another man's wife would surely be MORE related to the public interest, even if it's not much of a public concern. anyway Hogan's expert journalism witness yesterday got fuckin demolished and basically acknowledged that a newspaper could post a video of strippers performing sex acts recorded without their consent (I think) but that only meant they COULD post it not that it would be ETHICAL or JOURNALISM and that is not at all the question. I guess they were trying to argue that if gawker wasn't behaving ethically then they must not have been doing journalism and the people that wrote the ethics guidelines came right out and were like whoa we didn't say that poo poo. the law intends to permit more publication than would strictly be journalism because you don't want a chilling effect where publications shy away from posting controversial information with important public ramifications for fear of getting sued for it. that's me saying that not the ethics people but it is a fair summation of the jurisprudence. like how criminal law would rather exonerate 10 guilty people than convict 1 innocent person kinda. I didn't follow the tweets much today except hogan's expert witnesses again sounded like jokes to me and maybe that's the result of gawker's cross being good or maybe I'm predisposed to not finding their arguments persuasive but the takeaway is probably that it's all gonna come down to a handful of conservative floridians and in that regard gawker is probably in trouble even if I think the law is on their side
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
tane
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Skaw posted:But is 10 inch dick haver Hulk Hogan the racist, or the unspecified shorter than 10 inch dick haver Terry Bollea the racist? Hulk Hogan fights for the rights of EVERY man. Terry Bollea fights for the rights of white men and eight foot tall black men only
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Super No Vacancy posted:I dunno if Clem knew about the camera but if so then her consenting to it being taped would also factor into this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Terry Bollea had a ten inch penis until his ex-wife pulled out
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Does that mean that basically no celebrity has any expectation of privacy anywhere if it's all considered public interest? Also thanks for the good info post
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
i mean there is precedent for that yeah. public figures have a considerably tougher burden of proof in defamation cases which is why you only see celebs suing tabloids in the uk. and yeah it stands to reason that anything involving a celebrity would be considered more newsworthy than the same facts if a civilian were involved instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
oh I kinda misread your question actually. no I mean I think the expectation of privacy question is meant to be determined by the environment not the person. I don't have any specific familiarity with the precedent on that though. i think the truth of the matter is celebrities should always expect less privacy but my guess is that the courts would say that's not a helpful or beneficial distinction because it would result in bad policy e: so while a celebrity would have the same expectation of privacy in their own bathroom as a civilian would have in theirs, anything the celebrity does in there would naturally be more newsworthy. the public interest question is always gonna be more important. if hogan talked about a specific north korean plot to nuke texas on the fourth of july while masturbating alone in a darkened safe room then the circumstances of gawker getting that tape and hogans expectation of privacy aren't gonna matter because the courts want that information published Super No Vacancy fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Mar 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
Super No Vacancy posted:while a celebrity would have the same expectation of privacy in their own bathroom as a civilian would have in theirs, anything the celebrity does in there would naturally be more newsworthy
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
Sorry if this has been discussed, but sex and penis length aside, surely Hulk Hogan, (noted public figure), says something racist as he does in the tape, is newsworthy, and Gawker is in the right for releasing it. Gawker can argue "We were showing the racist thing he said, which is newsworthy. To ensure that all context remains, we had to release the entire tape which co-incdentally had the sex on it" Also Hogans argument "I lost money because people found out I was racist due to a racist thing I said" doesn't hold any water.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
BrigadierSensible posted:Sorry if this has been discussed, but sex and penis length aside, surely Hulk Hogan, (noted public figure), says something racist as he does in the tape, is newsworthy, and Gawker is in the right for releasing it. Gawker didn't release the full tape. They released an edited excerpt, none of which contained the racist bits. The racist bits came out just after discovery started in the trial.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Gawker didn't release the full tape. They released an edited excerpt, none of which contained the racist bits. Oh. I didn't know this. Thanks. Sorry for the stupid question. But doesn't the second part still stand? Hogan lost no future earnings because he had sex, he lost future earnings because of the racism/racist rant that came out. Or at least that would be something that could be argued.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
The main point will still be that Hogan didn't know he was being filmed at any point I would assume. I also know nothing about the law but enjoy Columbo and think Big Bossman was cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Gawker didn't release the full tape. They released an edited excerpt, none of which contained the racist bits. I'm not sure that Gawker having released these bits has ever been proven, but it is awfully convenient and fits with the MO of Gawker to pull crap like this that more dirt on Hulk popped up from a different gossip rag the moment that the process of litigation started in full swing. It reeks of reprisal and, up to that point, nobody else had really been running much dirt on Hulk. Can it ever be proven? That depends entirely on how shoddy the record keeping is, but it also isn't really related to the matter at hand and you shouldn't get into two separate fights at once. The outcome of THIS trial may determine whether or not Hulk's new career is going to be suing the hell out of anyone responsible for tarnishing his name, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
If Gawker had actually released the racist bits they would be completely hosed, so they're probably not going to be making any arguments on the newsworthiness of doing so Otherwise I guess we'll just hope that society decides that even if someone is famous, they still have some vague rights to assume privacy while inside a private residence getting their bone on. I guess if we want to think a 60 year old retired wrestler having sex is 'newsworthy' and 'relevant to the public interest' that's definitely a thing we could decide. Seems like a good reason to deprive a citizen of basic privacy imo for sure. It's really about free speech in journalism you see
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
It turns out that Hulk Hogan was raped?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 03:11 |
|
|
While I'm aware that a preliminary injuction is a very different thing than a trial due to prior restraint, let's look at what a federal judge in Florida said when Hogan tried to keep Gawker from posting it in the first place:quote:Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his heavy burden to overcome the presumption that the requested preliminary injunction would be an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment. Plaintiffs public persona, including the publicity he and his family derived from a television reality show detailing their personal life, his own book describing an affair he had during his marriage, prior reports by other parties of the existence and content of the Video, and Plaintiff s own public discussion of issues relating to his marriage, sex life, and the Video all demonstrate that the Video is a subject of general interest and concern to the community. Meanwhile the judge, a Jeb!Appointee who rose to fame by representing the parents during the Schavo fiasco, is a little off...beyond just the bandana thing (which is dumb anyway. Bollea's best argument is that he's a separate entity from Hogan. Putting his balding rear end in that seat in a suit and tie would be one of the best ways to drive that home). Certainly, the logic used to dismiss the injunction would still seem to apply for why it's of public relevance, but she denied Gawker's attempts to get it tossed pre-trial without any statement as to her reasoning. I can't see any jury judgement surviving appeal. e: Marquis de Pyro posted:If Gawker had actually released the racist bits they would be completely hosed, so they're probably not going to be making any arguments on the newsworthiness of doing so Where would you draw the line on this? The main thrust (heh) of Gakwer's defense is that Hogan's sex life is relevant because Hogan has consistently and repeatedly made his sex life a topic of public discussion and has profited from it. Should everyone who discussed the video and its content before Gawker posted it also get sued? I think Hogan has a hell of a case against Bubba (as well as whoever leaked the video, if you buy that it wasn't Bubba), but this suit has only the tiniest bit more merit than Chuck Johnson's suit against them. "Let me talk all about my sex life in a variety of different venues including some of the seediest shows in mainstream American culture... heyheyheyheywaitmysexlifeisprivate" is a stupid lovely argument that should be called out as such. I haven't seen it because I'm repulsed for the same reason I'm repulsed by revengeporn, the Andrews peephole video and the fappening, but I appreciate having a legal standard where-hypothetically- Chris Broussard can't use a lawsuit to force a media company into silence if there's a sextape of him cheating on his wife. Hogan winning this and surviving appeal will inevitably result in more Lawsuit as Image Management cases, and that's a much worse outcome than Gawker's continued existence. If we want to redefine Public Interest and Public Figure in a way that makes this a winnable case for Hogan, I'm actually for it... provided we get a national Anti-SLAPP law that makes bogus filings financially ruinous for celebs and corporations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 19:20
|
|
