Gawker Media - Feat. Kotaku, Jezebel, and Friends

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Ponderous Pillock said:
Even at the $50m they supposedly "have to pay" would wipe them out and kill the company due to the sheer scale of it. Denton flogged off part of his ownership of the company to try and limit the damage and exposure to his own finaces the other year because the courts could come after the owners rather than the company for cash.
Click to expand...

That won't work. Both Denton and Daulerio are co-defendants in the case, and unless the verdict somehow splits it up specially, jointly and severally liable for the torts they personally committed jointly along with the corporate entity. That means each of them can separately be gone after for the entire verdict if, for instance, the corporate defendant ceases to exist.

One good thing is that since there are actually important free speech issues in the case, there will likely be an appeal because Denton isn't going to cease to exist. He's just gonna have a bad time.
 
AnOminous said:
That won't work. Both Denton and Daulerio are co-defendants in the case, and unless the verdict somehow splits it up specially, jointly and severally liable for the torts they personally committed jointly along with the corporate entity. That means each of them can separately be gone after for the entire verdict if, for instance, the corporate defendant ceases to exist.

One good thing is that since there are actually important free speech issues in the case, there will likely be an appeal because Denton isn't going to cease to exist. He's just gonna have a bad time.
Click to expand...

What are the odds of an appeal being accepted considering his "lol fuck the judicial system" stance when he was ordered to remove the tape?
 
Here's to @Hollywood Hulk Hogan for showing those shitheads not to fuck with Hulkamania. Thank you, Based Hulk, for your valiant efforts to make the internet slightly more bearable by (likely) getting rid of one of the most cancerous sites.
 
Ruin said:
What are the odds of an appeal being accepted considering his "lol fuck the judicial system" stance when he was ordered to remove the tape?
Click to expand...

Not really relevant. "I don't like him" isn't a reason for not taking an appeal and unlike the original judge, the appellate panel has no particular reason to be personally resentful of them.
 
I hope that their appeal gets rejected. :alog:

But seriously, I do. What they did was really shitty, and they deserve every last bit of punishment they get.
 
I hope Hulkster invests his new wealth wisely. Like starting a new wrestling franchise where he beats the shit out of terrible internet journalists.
 
AnOminous said:
Not really relevant. "I don't like him" isn't a reason for not taking an appeal and unlike the original judge, the appellate panel has no particular reason to be personally resentful of them.
Click to expand...
So do you think the appellate judge will knock the verdict down or something?
I mean, it's pretty clear that Gawker is guilty as shit, so they're not gonna get a reversal.
 
Splendid Meat Sticks said:
So do you think the appellate judge will knock the verdict down or something?
I mean, it's pretty clear that Gawker is guilty as shit, so they're not gonna get a reversal.
Click to expand...

If they're guilty of doing something constitutionally protected, the appeals court will reverse it. They're not going to screw every other person in their jurisdiction with bad law because one defendant was a scumbag.
 
Gawker doesn't need to pay the Hulkster 154 million dollars, they need to just hand the company over, and it can become Hulkr, 24/7 Hulk Coverage Network.

All Hulkamania, All the time.
 
AnOminous said:
If they're guilty of doing something constitutionally protected, the appeals court will reverse it. They're not going to screw every other person in their jurisdiction with bad law because one defendant was a scumbag.
Click to expand...

I don't think that there's much of a question that Hogan's privacy was invaded unless they force Bubba the Love Sponge to testify on appeal (he pleaded the 5th at this trial, and it's his wife that Hogan was fucking.) It seems like filming someone having sex in a private house without their knowledge is probably an invasion of privacy. I guess Gawker's last hope might be that Bubba claims that Hogan knew he was being filmed.
 
Also, I love how people have been trying to justify Gawker's behavior by saying stuff like "Well, Hulk Hogan is a racist so he deserves what happened to him." I'm sure that at least a few of female celebrities who had their nudes leaked have said offensive things before, but I don't recall anyone claiming that they deserved what happened to them (of course, there was a huge debate about privacy and the cloud and all that jazz, but not any arguments that boiled down to "X said something offensive so she deserves to have her privacy violated.")
 
Cosmos said:
Also, I love how people have been trying to justify Gawker's behavior by saying stuff like "Well, Hulk Hogan is a racist so he deserves what happened to him." I'm sure that at least a few of female celebrities who had their nudes leaked have said offensive things before, but I don't recall anyone claiming that they deserved what happened to them (of course, there was a huge debate about privacy and the cloud and all that jazz, but not any arguments that boiled down to "X said something offensive so she deserves to have her privacy violated.")
Click to expand...
If saying something racially insensitive means that you deserve to have your privacy violated, then the Official Kiwi Nudes Compendium should be dropping any day now.
 
Splendid Meat Sticks said:
It seems like filming someone having sex in a private house without their knowledge is probably an invasion of privacy. I guess Gawker's last hope might be that Bubba claims that Hogan knew he was being filmed.
Click to expand...

That's almost certainly an invasion of privacy. It's hard to think of circumstances where that would be legal.

However, Bubba did that shit. So far as I know, Gawker didn't. They were responsible for the "publication of private facts." The judge's opinion, and the instructions given to the jury, are that they were to decide what "ceases to be the giving of legitimate information to which the public is entitled and becomes a morbid and sensational prying into private lives for its own sake."

The jury clearly thought what Gawker did was the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom