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

The outcome comes after two weeks of testimony in a first-of-its-kind case where discussions of newsworthiness and decency dominated.
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.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq...ict-876768

---

Good, releasing that video had nothing to do with free speech. That's just the tactic Gawker's lawyers used to defend the case. 

---

A crushing blow to the First Amendment. The Appeals court will toss this verdict right out.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So the first amendment protects private and personal things?

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

How in the world could a showing a PRIVATE sex tape be considered free speech????

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

How in the world could a showing a PRIVATE sex tape be considered free speech????

 

It's not, it's free press. Hogan is a public figure and therefore his actions are newsworthy.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

How in the world could a showing a PRIVATE sex tape be considered free speech????

After reading an article about it on Yahoo, whatever Hogan wins from the settlement, sounds like he may need a tiger blood transfusion. Sounded like that chick got around..

---

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/...ntent=link

 

Somewhat related to this discussion.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

After reading an article about it on Yahoo, whatever Hogan wins from the settlement, sounds like he may need a tiger blood transfusion. Sounded like that chick got around..

Well, instead of taping it, he should have spent more time wrapping it!! :thumbsup:

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

It's not, it's free press. Hogan is a public figure and therefore his actions are newsworthy.

Then writing a news article about him having a sex tape would be okay. Showing his tape and profiting off of it is not news. That's called pron.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

It's not, it's free press. Hogan is a public figure and therefore his actions are newsworthy.

So if it's a public figure it's ok? I don't think that's what the first amendment implies either....

 

If this were the case then Erin Andrews has no case either. She's a public figure too.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

So he bangs his best friends wife AND gets paid $115 million for it? Sign me up!

---

<FONT size=3>The secret to surfing is don't do anything.</FONT>

After reading an article about it on Yahoo, whatever Hogan wins from the settlement, sounds like he may need a tiger blood transfusion. Sounded like that chick got around..

 

The chick got around, but after seeing a few pictures of her, I would probably take the plunge (if I was single).

 

So he bangs his best friends wife AND gets paid $115 million for it? Sign me up!

 

A dude has to do what he can to help out his buddy.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

So if it's a public figure it's ok? I don't think that's what the first amendment implies either....

 

If this were the case then Erin Andrews has no case either. She's a public figure too.

I think the circumstances were somewhat different.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

How in the world could a showing a PRIVATE sex tape be considered free speech????

That is my question too...The only way I could imagine it could be is if perhaps one of the parties involved in the sex tape released the sex tape or uploaded the sex tape to the internet which is considered to be public domain, therefor rendering it no longer private, or one of the parties sold the tape to some media company which I am not seeing either as the case...The biggest questions seem to be who recorded the video, who knew the video was being recorded, and why the video was recorded, as it was suggested the Hogan had ulterior motives as to the taping of the act...

 

Still...I can't even begin to fathom that showing a private sexual act, in a private dwelling, with two consenting adults, released and shown by a separate entity  could possibly be "free speech"

---

That is my question too...The only way I could imagine it could be is if perhaps one of the parties involved in the sex tape released the sex tape or uploaded the sex tape to the internet which is considered to be public domain, therefor rendering it no longer private, or one of the parties sold the tape to some media company which I am not seeing either as the case...The biggest questions seem to be who recorded the video, who knew the video was being recorded, and why the video was recorded, as it was suggested the Hogan had ulterior motives as to the taping of the act...

 

Still...I can't even begin to fathom that showing a private sexual act, in a private dwelling, with two consenting adults, released and shown by a separate entity  could possibly be "free speech"

Hogan only brought this claim after his copyright suit got tossed out of court. He doesn't care about privacy, he just wants his cut.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It's not, it's free press. Hogan is a public figure and therefore his actions are newsworthy.

"Free Press", does not include private sexual actions inside a private dwelling...Had one of the participants of the sex tape released the tape into public domain, or sold it to a media company, then free press could be a possibility, however there is some question over how GAWKER  came to be in possession of the tape   

---

Hogan only brought this claim after his copyright suit got tossed out of court. He doesn't care about privacy, he just wants his cut.

his agenda (alledged by you)  makes no difference as to if Free Press or Freedom of speech applies to a private action conducted in a private dwelling between two concenting adults

---

Then writing a news article about him having a sex tape would be okay. Showing his tape and profiting off of it is not news. That's called pron.

and I would also call it invasion of privacy as well

---

So if it's a public figure it's ok? I don't think that's what the first amendment implies either....

 

If this were the case then Erin Andrews has no case either. She's a public figure too.

well Erin Andrews was secretly recorded in a hotel owned by a public company, not a private dwelling...There is an expectation of privacy when renting a hotel room and that privacy was breached 

---