Gawker lost the case because they were court-ordered to remove the tape and literally posted an article saying "We were ordered by courts to remove the tape but we're not"
Making a mockery of the justice system will get you the book and that (In addition to one of Gawker's editors using sarcasm during a deposition, insinuating that the age cutoff line for posting a celebrity sex tape was "four years old") is a big reason why Hogan got everything he asked for and more.
Quote:And by this post you are saying the Erin Andrews video is fine since some would call it "News" to them.
I don't recall Andrews suing any media corps, so it's not the same thing. Same as I said last time.
Quote:So someone's "so called rights to privacy" are trumped by a certain group so long as they think it's news? Ok, got ya. Talk about scary.
Better that then government control of information.
Quote:I don't recall Andrews suing any media corps, so it's not the same thing. Same as I said last time.
Right, and I replied to that which you conveniently ignored.
Quote:Better that then government control of information.
And this is exactly why you're argument holds no water and makes you look silly. That belief alone is scarier then anything else said in this whole thread.
Quote:And this is exactly why you're argument holds no water and makes you look silly. That belief alone is scarier then anything else said in this whole thread.
It's fine, my self worth isn't found in other people's approval and you have the right to be wrong.
Quote:Right, and I replied to that which you conveniently ignored.
We're just going in circles, no big deal.
How is the Government deciding this? The jury ruled against them, not the Government.
Quote:It's fine, my self worth isn't found in other people's approval and you have the right to be wrong.
That is good. I wasn't trying to boost, or negate your self-esteem whatsoever. I hate to break the news to you hear....one of is wrong here, and it isn't me. The court had their say on that.
Quote:We're just going in circles, no big deal.
Because the holes in your argument keep growing.
Quote:How is the Government deciding this? The jury ruled against them, not the Government.
Oh man, his spin on this should be fascinating.
There's been a ton of discussion about this case on several sites. I don't claim this as mine, but it is the best explanation I've found:
The fact that you don't understand that the 1st Amendment is applicable in cases beyond that involving direct government action shows that you don't know what you are talking about. You are focusing on only one section of the 1st Amendment (Govt can't punish speech) and are completely ignoring another aspect: the protections afforded the free press and more importantly that state created and sanctioned tort actions constitute "State Action" for purposes of defamation, invasion of privacy, etc. and thus the 1st Amendment is APPLICABLE in such cases.
In cases involving private individuals, such as when the press is accused of defamation, invasion of privacy, etc., the defense by the press is often firmly rooted in the 1st Amendment. Basically, because it is the Govt itself which put statutes in place which allow a person to bring suit and recover against the press and thus is basically a quasi player in the suit. Thus, using state law to punish someone for publishing something constitutes "State Action" under numerous US Supreme Court cases and thus could very well cause a violation of the 1st Amendment.
I will only take the time to show you how wrong you are, by merely noting that in the famous case: NY Times v Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that - Application by state courts of a rule of law (in that particular case - defamation), whether statutory or not, to award a judgment in a civil action, is "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment. By extension, the 1st Amendment is incorporated by the 14th Amendment.
In numerous other cases involving "invasion of privacy, the courts have consistently applied this same rule, whereby a private action (if it is grounded in state "tort" law), such as a suit for "invasion of privacy" does in fact constitute "State Action." In most states, the press is allowed to present a 1st Amendment defense in suits claiming "invasion of privacy" by balancing it's obligation, or allowance, to broadcast items which are newsworthy. The 1st Amendment is very much a part of all cases involving the press and balancing the rights of individuals v. the press as per the US Supreme Court.
I'll cite to another more contemporary case to prove my point and prove you don't know what the Fark you are talking about. (And that the 1st Amendment is applicable to private tort actions.)
Snyder v Phelps, 562 US 443 (2011), involved a state tort action against members of the Westboro Baptist Church who were picketing the funeral of a dead soldier.
From Chief Justice Roberts Opinion: "The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment-"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech"- can serve as a defense in state tort suits, including suits for intentional infliction of emotional distress. See, e.g., Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 50-51 (1988).
Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstances of the case. "[S]peech on 'matters of public concern' . . . is 'at the heart of the First Amendment's protection.'" Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U. S. 749, 758-759 (1985) (opinion of Powell, J.) (quoting First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 776 (1978)). The First Amendment reflects "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). That is because "speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government." Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 74-75 (1964). Accordingly, "speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection." Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 145 (1983)"
Again, this isn't complicated, the 9 seconds of the Hogan film that Gawker posted cannot fall under the domain of government sanction. They are protected by the 1st Amendment and this case will certainly be reversed on appeal. Hogan's beef isn't with Gawker, it's with Clem, he's the one who leaked the film. Hogan and Clem are working the system and scoring a huge payday off of it, the whole thing was a work.
Glad Hogan got paid. Guy has been wronged by so many people even going back to the NWO days.
Newsworthiness is in the eye of the beholder and courts have started to reexamine things since the boom of the internet and social media on privacy and newsworthiness.
Let's assume Gawker wins the appeal. They will still be in the hole $50 Million. Gawker will certainly appeal, as they should, but after they pay a bond of up to $50 million dollars.
Quote:Newsworthiness is in the eye of the beholder and courts have started to reexamine things since the boom of the internet and social media on privacy and newsworthiness.
Let's assume Gawker wins the appeal. They will still be in the hole $50 Million. Gawker will certainly appeal, as they should, but after they pay a bond of up to $50 million dollars.
News: REPORTING that a sex tape was recorded and stolen of Hogan
Dirty Movie Business: showing the sex tape.
Pretty easy to tell the difference.
Can you imagine how Hulk Hogan's best friend feels (the guy he betrayed by sleeping with his wife in making of this video), and knowing that in addition to the act he is now getting even richer from it.
It has to sting, if you are that guy you have to think to yourself why does everything good happen to this man?
Quote:Can you imagine how Hulk Hogan's best friend feels (the guy he betrayed by sleeping with his wife in making of this video), and knowing that in addition to the act he is now getting even richer from it.
It has to sting, if you are that guy you have to think to yourself why does everything good happen to this man?
Isn't he the one that recorded it?
Quote:Can you imagine how Hulk Hogan's best friend feels (the guy he betrayed by sleeping with his wife in making of this video), and knowing that in addition to the act he is now getting even richer from it.
It has to sting, if you are that guy you have to think to yourself why does everything good happen to this man?
Uhhhh, Bubba made the video and got off (snarf) with a $5,000 settlement; I'm sure he's planning to split whatever Hogan makes off of this work. So don't worry about Bubba the Low Life, he'll be just fine.