Hulk Hogan just killed GAWKER: Jury awards Hulk $115 Million!

[MikeWB]

RIP GAWKER you bunch of zionist anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian scumbags! Hope none of you ever find another employment again!




Hulk Hogan Gets $115M Verdict Against Gawker at Sex Tape Trial

Weighing free speech against privacy, a Florida jury has decided to uphold the sanctity of the latter by turning in a $115 million verdict against Gawker over its 2012 posting of a Hulk Hogan sex tape.

Hogan brought the case three years ago after Gawker, a 13-year-old digital news site founded by Nick Denton, an entrepreneur with an allergy to celebrity privacy, published a video the wrestler claimed was secretly recorded. The sex tape was sensational, showing Hogan — whose real name is Terry Bollea — engaged in sexual intercourse with Heather Cole, the then-wife of his best friend, Tampa-area radio shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge (real name: Todd Alan Clem). Gawker's posting of the Hogan sex tape was accompanied by an essay from then–editor-in-chief A.J. Daulerio about celebrity sex and a vivid play-by-play of the encounter between Hogan and Cole.

In an era when digital networks have reshaped culture, raising tough questions about sharing and prying in society, the jury got to hear two weeks of testimony in a first-of-its-kind sex tape case where discussions of newsworthiness and decency dominated.

READ MORE   Hulk Hogan Wins $115M in Sex Tape Lawsuit, Internet Weighs In
Hogan, the first to take the witness stand, attempted to separate his public persona from his true and private self. "It's turned my world upside down," he testified about Gawker's posting. His many interviews with press outlets, some addressing his sexual boasts and endeavors, became the subject of a heated cross-examination. "The person sitting here under oath is Terry Bollea, and I don't lie under oath," said Hogan.

His attorneys also played depositions conducted with Denton and Gawker staffers, who had to explain tasteless jokes and their boundary-pushing philosophies on what's appropriate to publish. "I believe in total freedom and information transparency," said Denton. "I'm an extremist when it comes to that." Many of those same Gawker hands later took the witness stand to put their journalism in a more flattering light, although Daulerio admitted Hulk Hogan's penis isn't newsworthy.

The trial also featured less salacious elements, with experts delving into the media business through discussion of digital marketing and web analytics. One of Hogan's experts testified the benefit to Gawker from the sex tape was $15 million, while another, on behalf of the defendant, told the jury it was just $11,000.

The mysterious background of the sex tape was explored by Gawker: Who knew a taping was happening? Was it a publicity stunt? Were there really secrets? But Gawker couldn't get Clem, whom they desperately wanted on the witness stand, to address conflicting accounts of who knew about the taping. Nor could they discuss many of the racist comments that Hogan had made during his sexual encounter with Cole to set up a possible argument that Hogan had an ulterior motive for the lawsuit.

A Florida appeals court ordered the unsealing of court records — including text messages between Hogan and Bubba, Bubba's deposition testimony, what the FBI was told during its investigation, and a $5,000 settlement agreement between Hogan and Bubba — but none of that made it into the trial thanks to Florida Circuit Judge Pamela Campbell's pretrial rulings that strongly favored Hogan. No part of the actual sex tape itself — including the excerpts published by Gawker — was shown to the jurors.

Nevertheless, the trial — which resembled the Scopes trial insofar as the amount of publicity attracted by a case centered on free speech and concerns about morality — provoked a discussion of ethics and boundaries in media like no other. One journalism professor, acting as an expert for Hogan, introduced his "Cheerios test" — whether readers could digest their breakfast when reading — with Hogan's attorneys bringing up Caitlyn Jenner, Madonna, Magic Johnson and others to probe whether it mattered if a celebrity injects their personal life into the public arena. Even Thomas Jefferson's name came up, with that same witness, Mike Foley, agreeing that it was good that the media speaks in different voices. "That was the original concept by Thomas Jefferson," said Foley, referring to the First Amendment.

READ MORE   Hulk Hogan Grilled About Sex-Filled TMZ, Howard Stern Interviews at Gawker Trial
Ultimately, the case became a battle — at least indirectly —between the First Amendment, guaranteeing free speech and a free press, and the Fourteenth Amendment, where courts have determined that a right to privacy derives under equal protection of life, liberty and property. Like many states, Florida has enacted statutes that guard against intrusions on seclusion and privacy of communications. Hogan also won on his right of publicity claim.

"Do you think the media can do whatever they want?" asked Hogan's attorney Ken Turkel in closing arguments.

"We don't need the First Amendment to protect what's popular," responded Gawker attorney Michael Sullivan in his own closing. "We need a First Amendment to protect what's controversial."

"This is not about political speech," rebutted Turkel to the jury. "This case is unique. ... You're not going to condemn someone's right to engage in speech. You're balancing the right to make the speech versus privacy rights."

In reaching its verdict, the jury tipped that scale toward privacy. Hogan sobbed, and after the outcome became clear, appeared relieved more than happy. The court will reconvene next week where the judge could decide to award punitive damages to Hogan.

A stunned-looking Nick Denton watched from the gallery and took a deep breath. Gawker has already indicated it will appeal. The focus of the coming proceedings will likely be whether the First Amendment should have precluded claims and whether Gawker got a fair trial.

Denton delivered a statement in response to the verdict. "Given key evidence and the most important witness were both improperly withheld from this jury, we all knew the appeals court will need to resolve the case," he said. " I want to thank our lawyers for their outstanding work and am confident that we would have prevailed at trial if we had been allowed to present the full case to the jury. That's why we feel very positive about the appeal that we have already begun preparing, as we expect to win this case ultimately."

Hogan's legal team hailed the outcome: "We're exceptionally happy with the verdict. We think it represents a statement as to the public's disgust with the invasion of privacy disguised as journalism. The verdict says no more."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/hulk-hogan-gets-115m-verdict-876768

[MikeWB]

Gawker: It's Cool to Punish OTHER People for Their Words, Just Not Us
BY: Sonny Bunch

October 23, 2014 3:03 pm

SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
Gawker
As I've noted elsewhere, the most amusing aspect of the whole #GamerGate phenomenon (background here and here and here) has been the angry progressive media types confusedly looking around trying to figure out how we got to a point where they would be targeted for boycotts and the like for casual comments they have made. As Varad Mehta noted,


Crazy, right? They don't quite understand the world they've created. They think it's the worst thing in the whole world for Internet Tough Guys to make death and rape threats* and also that it's cool to joke about Bristol Palin actually being physically assaulted by a man. Because stoopid Rethuglicans, you know? Most amusingly, they don't even seem to understand the contradiction. So they get really butthurt when someone else whips up an Internet rage mob against them. "Don't you understand?" they seem to be crying. "We're the good guys here! We only take on bad people! Those Other people. That aren't good. Like us!"

This is how you get to a place where Gawker Media is forced to talk out of both sides of its mouth, on the one hand callowly apologizing to readers (and, let's be honest, advertisers) for one of its writers launching a disgusting pro-bullying attack on a marginalized group while simultaneously apologizing for the apology and denouncing anti-Gawker campaigns as little better than "fascism" in order to maintain their street cred with their bros. It's a genius move, in a way, one that allows Gawker to tell the companies it relies on for revenue that it's really and truly sorry while also doing nothing to alienate its core readership of angry progressive know-nothings.

But I can remember a time when Gawker Media was perfectly happy to take part in "fascist" campaigns to ruin the lives of those they disagreed with—or just, like, made a joke they didn't like.

1. Valleywag Didn't Like Justine Sacco's Joke
Remember #HasJustineLandedYet? It was a really hilarious story about a woman who made a bad joke about AIDS and was soon inundated with rape threats and death threats and told that she should catch AIDS and die. Gross, right? Well, people sometimes forget that Gawker's Valleywag was the blog that got that lynch mob rolling. Good job, Sam Biddle!

2. Gawker Wanted to Bankrupt Chick Fil A Over Charitable Donations
The New York City website was really super serial in its campaign to cause the destruction of the southern fast food chain, which would have led to tens of thousands of people losing their jobs (and deprived the rest of us of delicious chicken nuggets). Why? Because they didn't like charitable donations made by the company's executives. Yikes. That's not fascist at all!

3. Valleywag Delighted in the Ouster of Mozilla's CEO for Donating to a Political Campaign
Oh that Sam Biddle. When he's not viciously attacking marginalized communities and calling for people to mercilessly bully them, he's taking glee in watching people he disagrees with suffer. For instance, here he is celebrating the ouster of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich after it was discovered that Eich, gasp, donated to a ballot initiative that Biddle didn't like.

4. Gawker Doxxed a Reddit Troll Who Lost His Job—and the Insurance Coverage for his Disabled Wife
Yikes, I'd almost forgotten about this one. Here's danah boyd:

Two weeks ago, Gawker journalist Adrian Chen decided to unmask the infamous Reddit troll "Violentacrez" as Michael Brutsch. When Chen contacted him, Brutsch did not attempt to deny the things he had done. He simply begged Chen not to publish his name, citing the costs that publicity would have on his disabled wife. Chen chose to publish the piece—including Brutsch's pleas and promises to do anything that Chen asked in return for not ruining his life. As expected, Brutsch lost his job and the health insurance that paid for his wife's care; Chen reported this outcome three days later.

"lulz," though, amirite?

Just remember: Causing someone to lose their livelihood for what they have said or what political causes they support is totes fine. Unless you do it to Gawker, of course. Then it's "fascist."

Update: From the New Yorker: "Hypocrisy is the only modern sin," [Gawker founder Nick Denton] likes to say.

*For the record: People who make said threats are scum and should be punished. But tarring a whole group for the misbehavior of a few people is stupid and bigoted.

http://freebeacon.com/blog/gawker-its-cool-to-punish-other-people-for-their-words-just-not-us/