Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

I certainly agree that it's difficult to see anything resembling a meaningful public interest in publishing the tapes - I'm surprised but pleased to see that the US courts didn't do their normal "you're a public figure so you have no rights" as tends to be the case with defamation or privacy cases.

Their fear is that if they concede on this point, what else will they have to concede and will their profession back them when they are in the same position, but for more noble reasons. Self preservation and principle.

They'd also get some peer pressure in the form of ostracism for breaking with the standard professional stance on the question.

Of course, the amount is likely to be revised down in appeals.

Freedoms of this nature must be protected regardless of the context. Gawker's unethical behaviour accross the network, from outing comfortably closeted gay people to failing to disclose obvious bias, is awful; but should not be forbidden. The cure is worse than the illness. My apologies to Matt Drudge if it seems like I'm making light of the action as intellectual pornography.

On a personal level I would love to see Gawker the company fold - but punishing media for publishing true facts is troubling. After all Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Wiener also had their privacy invaded. The idea of a media outlet being sued (although with good chance of winning the case) could hurt coverage of worthier targets.

Journalists look at Gawker writers and naturally think "There but for the grace of God, go I". So they have a lot of sympathy.

> The causes they enunciate are tarnished, just for being in their mouths.

That's the kind of thinking that gets you atrocious policy, especially in the judicial sphere. As I said below, people who want bad to enshrine bad precedent will pick the most unsympathetic targets in the courts in order to get it - including law enforcement (actually, especially law enforcement. Why isn't Apple helping the FBI stop terrorists???)

The courts sometimes see through this trick. Did you know that your Miranda rights exist because the Supreme Court threw out the conviction of a scumbag who had, indisputably, robbed and raped a mentally handicapped girl? It's sad that they didn't this time though, and that apparently the vox populi didn't either.

Good advice that's too easily forgotten in the moment.

That doesn't remotely describe what happened to the women whose pictures were published a few years back.

It's a little disquieting to read a comment that suggests there might have been a free speech angle to the latter story. Bollea's case might (in fact, probably will) be reversed on appeal.

I'm not sure if this news has circulated widely beyond people who listen to his podcast[0], but Bill Simmons (founder of Grantland, creator of '30 for 30'; fired by ESPN/Disney last year after criticizing Roger Goodell) has hired the core of Grantland's former writers, editors and staff, to start 'The Ringer':

http://theringer.com

Currently half-launched as an email newsletter, presumably while the infrastructure for a proper website is being developed.

If Deadspin does indeed shut down after this (... though I think the people in this discussion are taking this as far more of a given than it is), then there will be a massive hole in this side of independent sports media, that The Ringer would be a top contender for filling.

--

[0] http://thebillsimmonspodcast.tumblr.com/tagged/Bill-Simmons

When it goes to appeal I am sure the number will be negotiated downward or nobody wins and Gawker closes.

forgets god did it to him in the first place

Was he likely to make $115m over the rest of his life? We'll never know.

Ya know how if you buy a car second hand, and it turns out the car is stolen, you have to give it back, even if you bought it honestly?

This feels similar to me. He never gave consent and had a reasonable expectation of privacy. While you can't give him back his privacy here, the video never existed in a public domain sans-crime, so it's publishing (much like your ownership and monetary outlay) is secondary. Except that here, Gawker was a party to the crime.

For me, the 1st doesn't trump privacy. I have no doubt others feel differently.

Privacy outweighs the first amendment at this stage. But lets remember, that Gawker is a pretty far stretch to say they are living within the 1st amendment rights.

It's like how the 2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms and the government can't take that away from you but a landlord can keep you from having a gun in your apartment.

If this was a criminal case the First Amendment would be relevant (by my understanding) but since it's civil, it's irrelevant.

Everyone on the Internet from ACLU and EFF will rightly defend the right to link. Well, the sleazy tabloids will continue doing what they do.

This is no win for privacy because it only protects those who are willing to go to court over this. Gawker is scum (particularly for doxxing people) but Hulk Hogan is no saint either.

Edit: grammar and spelling

Edit: meaning improved protections against baseless lawsuits that could be damaging regardless of their merit. The simple way to protect your news company from being sued for releasing leaked sex tapes is to simply not release leaked sex tapes, which I think will be the major takeaway from this case.

That will be soooo terrible if we set a precedent that "journalists" actually have to actually give a shit about the standards of their alleged profession.

Financially speaking, the jury has objectively awarded Hogan a ton of money ($15mm more than he was seeking even) -- and punitive damages have not even been decided yet! It's not inconceivable that the total amount will approach Gawker's entire net worth. But that isn't how damages are decided -- something like this can clearly have a considerable negative lasting impact on the ability to earn in the future, and I think it's clear in this case that Hogan has been impacted in this way. I'm sure that played into the jury's math. Without knowing more about their deliberations, I think it's too early to say if they erred on the high side.

From the perspective of media companies starting to worry about being torn to shreds for posting this sort of thing, all I can say is "good". Freedom of speech is extremely important. A free press is extremely important. Posting an illegally obtained sex tape and then further refusing to remove it is not a victory for either, it is sleaziness and pandering to the lowest denominator of society to make a buck.

The best way to combat that tendency of some parts of the media is to make the buck not worth grabbing -- when you risk having to pay it back ten times over.

1) Nonconsensual porn shouldn't be posted to the internet. The details can be discussed just fine without the visual.

2) It most certainly shouldn't be kept online after a judicial order to take it down.

In the case of this particular ecosystem, I'm still not seeing the downside.

You're eliding some very important details. The precedent it sets is for individuals whose private sex tapes have been published against their will to sue media companies for massive amounts of money.

If I made a private sex tape, and it were somehow published, I'd want to be able to sue for it too. Whatever happened to tech nerds being in favor of privacy? I don't want the government snooping on my phone calls and I don't want media shit-tards spreading my sex tapes. It all falls under the umbrella of privacy to me.

They do deserve it. Not because they are a terrible site, but because of their actions that resulted in this case.

This isn't some random act of happenstance that put Gawker in trouble. It was something brought about entirely by their own actions and decisions.

It's not a bad thing to have a legal precedent that says you cannot post private sex tapes online, without permission, and then refuse to take them down when ordered by the court.

Most people would have agreed with that without needing to be told it by the court.

I guess however there was enough financial incentive for Gawker to keep the tape up even after being ordered to take it down, and if that's the bed you're going to make, no-one will feel sorry for you when you have to lie in it.

What struggling ecosystem? The tabloid industry? Gawker is little more than a tabloid. And as far as I know the vapid tabloid industry is doing just fine.

oh god, you think it's bad here in the anglo world? Don't look at Korea and Japan then.

For the 1A concern here, consider the Anthony Weiner case, in which indisputably private photos of Weiner were also published. I don't like that they were (I think he could have been just as effectively ejected from public life with good writing) but it's concerning to think that he'd have a tort hammer to swing to keep the story from coming out at all.