Well maybe he will get some adequate money in punitive damages.
Sounds fair, actually. Is this not the same tape upon which Hogan was heard to utter racial slurs, causing him to lose his employment with WWE?
According to this article Gawker believes they will win on appeal.
In the event they don’t win I hope they’re able to spin off Jalopnik. I have no use for the other Gawker Media sites but Jalopnik is an every day site for me.
I think they cannot even appeal without first posting a $115 million appeal bond.
What if a defendant is too poor to post the bond? Are they denied the right to appeal?
In the case of Gawker, I sure hope so. I’m not a wrestling fan. I’m not a Hulk Hogan fan. Honestly, he’d probably try to spit at me before ever shaking my hand.
~That Said~
Naked picture surveillance/hacker/posters are some of the single lowest forms of life on Ogs Green Earth and a True Plague on America today.
I don’t care if you’re Trump, Clinton, a Rock Star, an Oscar winner, some naive kid trying to get into the Greek System, some business person renting a room at a hotel that takes bribes, or just a normal everyday guy living at home that there’s nothing special about (like me).
NOBODY deserves to have their naked body filmed without their knowledge or consent, let alone to have those images broadcast on the internet before Og and Sundry.
NO ONE has the right to do that to another human being under any circumstances and no law that would seemingly allow it should be let to stand as Constitutional.
If it takes judgments, fines, and impounding assents until the business and/or any of its successors are no longer a going concern, so be it.
As for solitary confinement of the photographers and surveillance tech wanna-bees with no access to any form of electronic communication/media and limiting their access to their attorneys to face-to-face Only and with no possibility of early parole, that’s between them and a good judge.
I agree. Are there actual laws against it? It seems it would be pretty easy to catch people doing this (after all, they posted the images up, just track it back to source) and toss them in prison, which would be a bigger deterrent than worrying about the remote possibility of a civil lawsuit. People who don’t have any money tend to not get sued but they also tend to not like prison.
This is not my area of law, so the following is only my best guess, based on dim memory and possibly wildly wrong. Also this may vary from state to state…
Yes, in civil litigation there isn’t a constitutional right to appeal. You had your day in court, and you can appeal, but you can’t use the appeal to simply delay payment. So you have to post a bond equal to the judgement against you. That way, if you lose the appeal, the plaintiff gets his money without having to drag it out of you and if you win on appeal, you get it back.
Corrections welcome.
So the old man’s back in the money game again. Good for him, glad to hear he won as it was all a bunch of BS imo. People talk shit, big whoop.
Good. Gawker is what you’d get if you gathered a bunch of high school kids and told them to run a news website about what they think are the most important things. So you get “this girl is so cool,” “that’ guy’s a homo,” “are they fucking (we think they are,)” “Don’t these people suck?”
and so on.
The part quoted above says it’s a $50 million bond. I’ve heard there’s some sort of upper limit on how much they have to put up.
My understanding Gawker currently is arguing that Hogan gave his permission to the person who filmed it. And that, since that person published it, they have fair use rights to it. They claim they were not allowed to make this case, nor call in the witness that said Hogan could give permission.) And that this is why they are appealing.
Is this a valid case?
On a more personal note, I’m kinda surprised no one is arguing it’s too high, since no one was killed or anything. Or, more seriously, that no one seems to be on Gawker’s side.
People don’t usually care too much about legality when it comes to outing a racist tirade. No one cared about people reporting on that answering machine tape of Mel Gibson’s rant.
I guess the sex issue overrides that.
(Note, I’m not saying I agree with what Gawker did. The sex definitely should have been left out, if nothing else. And I do know what they did was absolutely legally stupid: you don’t ignore a court order, even if you think they are wrong.)
Probably. However, Gawker - like other high class publications such as TMZ and The National Enquirer- has broken some significant news stories.
- I read that he settled with Bubba for $5000. That guy was probably as liquid as Gawker at the time.
- People just really don’t like Gawker, and are wishing them ill due to other things they did like outing that one guy. I feel it’s like when OJ Simpson finally went to jail for that one thing and people didn’t care because he probably did that other much worse thing. I don’t know if anyone is really judging the merits of the case. Legally, I don’t know, but I do know Gawker has raised important issues and has said some things in its defense that are uncomfortable but not wrong.
a stopped clock may be right twice a day, but that doesn’t excuse said stopped clock from doing the wrong thing most of the time.
I think Gawker actually has a pretty good chance of winning their appeal. If they don’t lawsuits are going to start flying right and left in all types of media when they use unauthorized photos or video without the subject’s approval.
The hate for Gawker is not a big mystery. Gawker is managed and staffed by a significant number gay men and yet they have no compunction about outing non-celebrities if they are part of juicy story. They literally have a take no prisoners ethos when it comes to the limits of what they think should be published. They have pissed a lot of people off.
This story was one example. It (IMO) really did blow out any vestige of sympathy people had for Gawker.
So I wonder how much will be left for Nick Denton, founder of Gawker?