I think Jon was trying to say that whomever supplied the tape (and was presumably enriched by it) receives no punishment, and while many people may wind up out of a job if/when Gawker closes up shop, it likely hurts the relatively innocent secretaries and janitors that lose their jobs far more than the people who paid for the video and decided to release it. It’s an imperfect system, in short.
Exactly. Jon Rowe seems to be mistaking this for something like CNN reporting that Gawker (or some other party) released the sex tape. Obviously, in that case, CNN isn’t liable as they are just reporting the news. But that’s not the situation that Gawker’s in as they’re not reporting news, they made the news by releasing the tape without consent.
Won’t someone think of the Gawker secretaries and janitors?
Yeah, screw 'em all. That’s the spirit!!!
This isn’t the “janitor on the Death Star” scenario where you’re still opting to work for a knowingly evil organization, but rather it’s just someone working for a news organization (Gawker’s crappy reporting might be argued a blight on humanity, but I don’t see it being evil). Maybe it’s easy for some people to quickly float to another job, but it can be devastating to many and I don’t see the morality behind being indifferent to their plight. If I apply the “s#!t happens” axiom to cover it, that also doesn’t seem adequate when a better (and thus far theoretical) system might be able to more accurately target those truly responsible. The organization still should bear responsibility even if it’s just to serve as an example for other organizations needing to make sure oversight exists, but our current system seems to dole out the punishment fairly evenly amongst the employees in such a case (shareholders get totally screwed as well, fwiw). Then again, I guess the idea behind LLC’s, commercial insurance, and what not are to encourage growth in a market by reducing personal risks of entrepreneurship. So maybe this imperfect balance is needed for the sake of economic growth. I’m not well versed enough in economics to properly weigh the merits of alternate approaches, but I can at least see some arguments against what we currently have.
I haven’t been following this at all but I’m kind of confused reading the thread. I assumed the harm to his reputation was him saying he’d never let his daughter marry a black person, not the actual sexy times images. This was my impression when the events were happening in real time. I’m assuming you can’t sue if someone truthfully reports something you actually said, right?
So that means he got 100+ million as recompense to his reputation just for the actual sex in the video – not including the damage to his reputation from the comments about his daughter’s marriage – is that correct? So we can estimate that in the general case the value of a leaked sex video is upwards of 100 million to a celebrity?
They can’t appeal because they’d have to put up a bond for the judgment.
Not if the appeals court says they don’t have to.
Mark Spottswood, an assistant professor at Florida State University’s college of law, said that past rulings from the appeals court suggest Hogan “may still have an uphill battle” to collect the damages.
The court has indicated it’s sympathetic to Gawker’s position that the publication of excerpts from the tape is protected by the First Amendment, due in part to how much Hogan talked about his sex life in public.
For example, the court said in a 2014 opinion that it was “clear” Gawker’s video and accompanying commentary addressed “matters of public concern” due to the controversy surrounding the sex tape, which was partly “exacerbated” by Hogan himself.
Len Niehoff, a professor who specializes in civil procedure at the University of Michigan Law School, said a losing party in Gawker’s position will generally ask for both a stay of judgment and an appeal.
In cases that implicate the First Amendment, Niehoff said stays play an important role because “appellate courts typically have a duty to review the result very carefully.”
Niehoff said the verdict has the potential to set a “dangerous” precedent “where a celebrity can make his sexual exploits an open book then sue for invasion of privacy when a media entity wants to add a chapter.”
That could loom large in the case’s next chapter.
“I think that Gawker’s central argument has substantial legal appeal, even if a jury doesn’t like it,” Niehoff said.
The gravedancing is way premature. This could go on for months and months yet.
If it helps you get to sleep tonight, Gawker very likely doesn’t employ janitors. They rent space from a building, and the building manager employs the janitors.
With that said, collateral damage to employees in a suit like this happen. You want to tell the folks suing a drug company over thalidomide about the secretaries they put out of jobs? It kind of sucks that in this case it’s scumbag like Hulk Hogan, and that it’s over something as dumb as a sex tape. The cool thing about our laws is that they don’t care about that though. Which is how it has to be.
Also saw that Gawker sold off a chunk of itself to a VC firm last year in preparation for a judgment against, so they’d have access to liquid capital.
So yeah, I think you’re right about the reports of their demise being a bit exaggerated at this point.
No, I don’t. I am saying the system as constructed sucks because the damages to a business are not allotted proportionately according to levels of responsibility, and that I hope the day comes that it evolves into something more equating justice. I’m not sure where you’re getting the notion that I’m trying to stop a victim from suing or that they should feel guilty about it - that system, faulty as it is, currently remains the only recourse and they should use it.
At this point, perhaps I should just chalk it up to different sensitivities for different people, but you’ve otherwise seemed a pretty empathetic human being so it just strikes me as odd that this is one particular hill you choose to stand on.
I get what you are saying, but I think it’s true in any punishment scenario that innocent people around the guilty party get affected. If they didn’t go after the business as a whole but instead just went directly after the decision making individuals then there would still be spouses and children affected. At the end of the day society is full of people with relationships and dependencies upon each other. Any bad actor can screw things up for a whole lot of people.
Hard to imagine a VC firm of all entities paying for one of their client/pawn’s judgments. That’s not how venture capital normally rolls. It’s not how vulture capital rolls either, for that matter, so I wonder what kind of dirt Gawker has on the VCs now…
Gawker was also ordered by the court to take the Hogan video down. They did not. They also wrote an article about how they would not obey a court order.
Their “star witness” Gawker was going to call was Bubba the Love Sponge, who was going to say Hogan was in on this whole thing. The judge didn’t hear him because he’s untrustworthy.
I heard this drama on Howard Stern years ago. This is my best recollection of the whole thing. Bubba said he keeps cameras running in his entire house all the time, and he forgot he had one going when let Hogan sleep with his wife. Then he had a contractor working on his house and the contractor stole the tape and released it. Hogan was pissed but Bubba claimed he had no idea and it was an accident so they settled for like $5k, then Hogan started going after Gawker for posting it.
Later, more of the details of the tape come out, and turns out Bubba and his wife planned to film the incident and leak it. So I can understand why Bubba is seen as untrustworthy. It sounds like he sold the tape.
This will be appealed. The ultimate outcome will hinge on whether or not the publication of the video is considered newsworthy or of public interest and therefore protected by the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment protects the press from tortious liability for protected speech. I’m not really sure why you would say that this has zero to do with the 1st amendment.
I thought they did take it down but they left up the article about the video existing? Also can anyone with a grasp on the legal stuff clear up the questions in my previous comment?
Of course it’s relevant. Gawker will appeal this and the ultimate disposition will depend on whether or not the video is considered a matter of public concern or newsworthy information and therefore protected by the 1st amendment.
It’s also not true to say that 1st amendment considerations do not apply to torts between private parties if the suit is concerning matters that could be of public concern. Snyder v Phelps? A SC case concerning lawsuit between 2 private parties that the court vacated because of the 1st amendment.
(a) The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can serve as adefense in state tort suits, including suits for intentional infliction ofemotional distress. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46,50-51. Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro liablefor its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech isof public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstancesof the case. “[S]peech on public issues occupies the ‘ “highest rung ofthe hierarchy of First Amendment values” ’ and is entitled to specialprotection.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 145. Although theboundaries of what constitutes speech on matters of public concernare not well defined, this Court has said that speech is of public concernwhen it can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political,social, or other concern to the community,” id., at 146, or whenit “is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to thepublic,” San Diego v. Roe, 543 U. S. 77, 83–84. A statement’s arguably“inappropriate or controversial character . . . is irrelevant to thequestion whether it deals with a matter of public concern.” Rankin v.McPherson, 483 U. S. 378, 387. Pp. 5–7.
…
The “special protection” afforded to what Westboro said, in thewhole context of how and where it chose to say it, cannot be overcomeby a jury finding that the picketing was “outrageous” for purposes ofapplying the state law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.That would pose too great a danger that the jury would punishWestboro for its views on matters of public concern. For all thesereasons, the jury verdict imposing tort liability on Westboro for intentionalinfliction of emotional distress must be set aside. Pp. 12–13.
And to paraphrase what I stated in my original post, I hope that whatever court ultimately rules on this finds that the publication of the video was NOT newsworthy or something of public concern and allows the juries award to stand.
Actually the $115m damages do NOT include punitive damages - those have yet to be assessed, but there are going to be some - that part of the trial hasn’t happened yet.
He definitely had 10s of millions in damages as a result of Gawker’s actions - they deliberately ruined his career and were ordered by a judge previously to not host the video and they deliberately disobeyed the court order.
They did not take it down when ordered to do so, and wrote an article about that decision. They later took down the video when the civil litigation commenced.
You’re just winging it here, heh. You can raise money from investors for any number of reasons, as long as the “use of proceeds” (a covenant in the subscription documents) clearly permits spending the funds raised on that purpose. In this case, Gawker actually did raise money for expenditures related to the litigation by selling off shares of the company.
