Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Nuance makes the case.

no..the difference between the right to privacy vs free speech made the case...free speech does not apply here

Quote:no..the difference between the right to privacy vs free speech made the case...free speech does not apply here

 

Yes it does and it will be shown that this court's ruling is unconstitutional on appeal.

Quote:Yes it does and it will be shown that this court's ruling is unconstitutional on appeal.

nope, they will lose the appeal saying that a persons right to privacy trumps free speech...I would agree with you had the tape been sold or handed over to the media outlet by one of the persons on the tape, but that is not the case...a stolen private tape, handed to the media and shown to the world via the internet is the property of the persons on the tape and neither of them consented to the tape being made public

Quote:Yes it does and it will be shown that this court's ruling is unconstitutional on appeal.

 

 

Quote:nope, they will lose the appeal saying that a persons right to privacy trumps free speech...I would agree with you had the tape been sold or handed over to the media outlet by one of the persons on the tape, but that is not the case...a stolen private tape, handed to the media and shown to the world via the internet is the property of the persons on the tape and neither of them consented to the tape being made public

Time will tell. I think wrong_box is correct though.

 

Florida is a two party consent state and neither of the two in the tape knew it was being recorded. 

Quote:Time will tell. I think wrong_box is correct though.

 

Florida is a two party consent state and neither of the two in the tape knew it was being recorded.

Gawker has already essentially won this case in the Appellate Court. Here's a detailed description of the why.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2016/03/8594339/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115-million-gawker-looks-appeal'>http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2016/03/8594339/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115-million-gawker-looks-appeal</a>

Quote:Gawker has already essentially won this case in the Appellate Court. Here's a detailed description of the why.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2016/03/8594339/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115-million-gawker-looks-appeal'>http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2016/03/8594339/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115-million-gawker-looks-appeal</a>

Not really... from your link... "While the sheer size of the judgment is unexpected, the fact that the jury decided in favor of Hogan is not. Gawker has long anticipated that it would lose the jury trial
, and has been preparing for an appeal.

<p style="font-family:'ff-tisa-web-pro', Georgia, serif;font-size:18px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">“It’s probably difficult to win the case entirely, outright, knowing the jury that we’re facing, but it’s possible. More likely than not, we end up with a really small judgment that we can easily carry and we appeal that,” Gawker president and general counsel Heather Dietrick told employees during a staff meeting in October.

<p style="font-family:'ff-tisa-web-pro', Georgia, serif;font-size:18px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> 

<p style="font-family:'ff-tisa-web-pro', Georgia, serif;font-size:18px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">The trial was always going to be an uphill battle for Gawker. The company’s legal justification for posting the tape — that the sex tape was a newsworthy matter of public concern
and therefore Gawker’s publication of it was protected by the First Amendment — was always unlikely to sway a civilian jury, even if it is reasonably well-supported by Florida case law.". 

<p style="font-family:'ff-tisa-web-pro', Georgia, serif;font-size:18px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> 

<p style="font-family:'ff-tisa-web-pro', Georgia, serif;font-size:18px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Now another part of the story is too long so I'll paraphrase it...The article says that Florida law requires the judgment to be paid prior to the appeal, but Gawker does not have that money. They can petition the court to pay only $50mm of it as another state statute requires, but it must have approval of the court that issued the judgment ruling, which seems unlikely as well...

<p style="font-family:'ff-tisa-web-pro', Georgia, serif;font-size:18px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> 

<p style="font-family:'ff-tisa-web-pro', Georgia, serif;font-size:18px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">The last resort is to petition the court who ordered the judgment  to order a stay on the payment of the judgment which is not likely either...

<p style="font-family:'ff-tisa-web-pro', Georgia, serif;font-size:18px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> 

<p style="font-family:'ff-tisa-web-pro', Georgia, serif;font-size:18px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">It's unlikely the judge will put a stay on the judgment and Gawker doesn't have the money to pay it either, without one or the other happening, the appeal can not be heard and will be dismissed...

<p style="font-family:'ff-tisa-web-pro', Georgia, serif;font-size:18px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> 

<p style="font-family:'ff-tisa-web-pro', Georgia, serif;font-size:18px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">The other part of this story is that Gawker claims that the tape is "newsworthy and a concern for the public"...I can not fathom that a stolen sex tape is a "concern for the public"... 

Doesn't look good for Gawker.


So if someone goes into your computer and steals your nude photos and releases it to the world than free speech should apply?


It doesn't matter that it's stolen or allegedly both parties were video tapes without being aware and Gawker did not have permission to release it? Could Gawker have made this seriously newsworthy article about what Hogan did with Bubba the love sponges wife without showing the tape? What about Hogans right to privacy? Does gawkers stolen video tape trump Hogans rights when he did nothing illegal?

Quote:Doesn't look good for Gawker.


So if someone goes into your computer and steals your nude photos and releases it to the world than free speech should apply?


It doesn't matter that it's stolen or allegedly both parties were video tapes without being aware and Gawker did not have permission to release it? Could Gawker have made this seriously newsworthy article about what Hogan did with Bubba the love sponges wife without showing the tape? What about Hogans right to privacy? Does gawkers stolen video tape trump Hogans rights when he did nothing illegal?

 

Yup, can't see how anyone can champion Gawker here.

 

Some mistakes are costly in immeasurable ways.

Quote:Doesn't look good for Gawker.


So if someone goes into your computer and steals your nude photos and releases it to the world than free speech should apply?


It doesn't matter that it's stolen or allegedly both parties were video tapes without being aware and Gawker did not have permission to release it? Could Gawker have made this seriously newsworthy article about what Hogan did with Bubba the love sponges wife without showing the tape? What about Hogans right to privacy? Does gawkers stolen video tape trump Hogans rights when he did nothing illegal?

Yea, but if it is a celebrity it's cool because News.

Quote:Isn't he the one that recorded it?

 

Oh I didn't know.  I don't watch fake wrestling.  I did as a child until my grandmother told me she used to watch Rick Flair wrestle (I think he started back in 1972) he's 67 years old.  When I realized the entire thing was fake it really ruined it for me.  I worry that football might go the way of wrestling, especially with the concerns of players health while making them more of entertainers than athletes.

Quote:Oh I didn't know.  I don't watch fake wrestling.  I did as a child until my grandmother told me she used to watch Rick Flair wrestle (I think he started back in 1972) he's 67 years old.  When I realized the entire thing was fake it really ruined it for me.  I worry that football might go the way of wrestling, especially with the concerns of players health while making them more of entertainers than athletes.

What's fake wrestling got to do with it? Lol


He was boffing his best friend's wife and the best friend, apparently a popular radio host, filmed him in the act. No spandex tight briefs or fake chair smashes were involved...least I don't think so, I didn't see the video. :no:

 

Maybe he's taking his career in a different direction at this age?

Quote:

 

Maybe he's taking his career in a different direction at this age?

Bow chicka bow bow

Quote:What's fake wrestling got to do with it? Lol


He was boffing his best friend's wife and the best friend, apparently a popular radio host, filmed him in the act. No spandex tight briefs or fake chair smashes were involved...least I don't think so, I didn't see the video. :no:

From what I read, the husband got his jollies by having his wife do the pile driver with several other men. It's all so weird.

Quote:From what I read, the husband got his jollies by having his wife do the pile driver with several other men. It's all so weird.

I laughed way more at this then I should have!!

Quote:I laughed way more at this then I should have!!

It was so corny, yet so appropriate.

Hogan suing Gawker, again. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ma...ks-lawsuit

Quote:Hogan suing Gawker, again. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ma...ks-lawsuit

 

Yep, he's a professional suer now.

Quote:Yep, he's a professional suer now.

Everyone needs a hobby.

Quote:From what I read, the husband got his jollies by having his wife do the pile driver with several other men. It's all so weird.

 

In light of today's more liberal society I must ask, was she the pile or the driver?