Peyton Marino
Footballguy
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/10/media/gawker-media-bankruptcy/index.html
I hope 'Real American' plays on repeat during the asset sale
I hope 'Real American' plays on repeat during the asset sale
Love the idea, but you gotta also slip in some Voodoo Chile.I hope 'Real American' plays on repeat during the asset sale
The following First Amendment fan feels similarly....I'm pretty much a near maximum 1st Amendment fan and I can see some of Gawker's prior work as beneficial - including the Guccifer articles exposing Hillary's private email system and Jon Edwards - but publishing the private sex video of someone? Really there's no limit to that vileness.
what do you mean?That said, the clandestine nature of the angel investor for Hulk Hogan does worry me.
That he had funding for his own personal gain, which in my opinion leaves open the possibility that there will be subsequent suits brought at the expense of the First Amendment by powerful investors.what do you mean?
not really. they published private video for no apparent reason. Pretty dumb actually.Ramsay Hunt Experience said:Kind of a bad day for the First Amendment. I would expect Gawker to win an appeal, but the damage was done.
Gawker is currently facing a wrath of litigation that's been connected to Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel. Besides the Hogan suit, there are claims from a journalist and the alleged inventor of e-mail who both say they were defamed. Gawker is also facing off against the parent company of Daily Mail in court and was hit with a copyright lawsuit this week over a photograph of an Uber car.
Why do people insist on misunderstanding the First amendment?The Hogan ruling was horrible for the First Amendment and will hopefully be reversed upon appeal. I also love how all the Hogan backers just entirely ignore his racist ranting.
Hogan's unseemly personality has nothing to do with the result.The Hogan ruling was horrible for the First Amendment and will hopefully be reversed upon appeal. I also love how all the Hogan backers just entirely ignore his racist ranting.
Great, and we love how the Gawker backers just entirely ignore Nick Denton and A.J. Daulerio being steaming piles of ####.I also love how all the Hogan backers just entirely ignore his racist ranting.
I haven't ignored it. I'm convinced he is not fit to run for office or own an NBA team.The Hogan ruling was horrible for the First Amendment and will hopefully be reversed upon appeal. I also love how all the Hogan backers just entirely ignore his racist ranting.
I don't particularly care about Thiel. And I think the Hogan story was in bad taste. Still it was a story of public concern and generally short excerpts of video in news stories in those cases are protected speech. The Fappening, where full videos were made available outside the context of stories about the data breach, isn't a very good analogue. Those were copyright takedown notices where there was no fair use defense.
This is a IIED/publication of private facts tort case. There is a lot of caselaw out there that this decision flies in the face of.
I'd love to hear this one. How exactly am I misunderstanding the First Amendment? Is Hogan not a public figure? Is there nothing newsworthy about his personal life? Please, enlighten me.Why do people insist on misunderstanding the First amendment?
Link to the law congress passed inhibiting Gawkers freedom of speech?I'd love to hear this one. How exactly am I misunderstanding the First Amendment? Is Hogan not a public figure? Is there nothing newsworthy about his personal life? Please, enlighten me.
"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"."Great, and we love how the Gawker backers just entirely ignore Nick Denton and A.J. Daulerio being steaming piles of ####.
See how fun that game is to play?
A.J. Daulerio Doesn’t Regret Child Sex Quip at Hogan-Gawker Trial
Daulerio told Hogan’s lawyer that he “enjoyed watching the video... because I found it very amusing,” and was “proud” to have published it.
“Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” Mirell pressed.
“If they were a child,” Daulerio replied.
“Under what age?” Mirell asked.
“Four,” Daulerio answered.
Does it matter? He made racist remarks. He shouldn't have any legal rights.I'd love to hear this one. How exactly am I misunderstanding the First Amendment? Is Hogan not a public figure? Is there nothing newsworthy about his personal life? Please, enlighten me.
one has nothing to do with the other, but i'm curious to hear you make the caseThe Hogan ruling was horrible for the First Amendment and will hopefully be reversed upon appeal. I also love how all the Hogan backers just entirely ignore his racist ranting.
In case you hadn't noticed lately, public figures making openly racists remarks seems to be both newsworthy and quite well covered.one has nothing to do with the other, but i'm curious to hear you make the case
He wasn't suing over that, was he?In case you hadn't noticed lately, public figures making openly racists remarks seems to be both newsworthy and quite well covered.
In case you hadn't noticed lately, public figures making openly racists remarks seems to be both newsworthy and quite well covered.
Nice attempt to move the goal posts. I didn't address the legal aspect of your post. I addressed the part where you questioned people having the gall to support Hogan because of personal statements he has made. So I volleyed the ball back onto your side of the court with a Gawker rep's personal statements and positions. Seems like you're supporting people who have made some unseemly comments too."America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"."
Where exactly do you think the racist comments came from?and what does that have to do with Hogan winning an $140M lawsuit against Gawker for publishing a private sex tape?
I thought we were discussing a First Amendment case, someplace where what's legally right is tantamount.Nice attempt to move the goal posts. I didn't address the legal aspect of your post. I addressed the part where you questioned people having the gall to support Hogan because of personal statements he has made. So I volleyed the ball back onto your side of the court with a Gawker rep's personal statements and positions. Seems like you're supporting people who have made some unseemly comments too.
What's legally right isn't necessarily what's morally right.
So why did Gawker not just publish the portion of the tape where they allege he went on his racist rant?Where exactly do you think the racist comments came from?
We were until you brought a completely irrelevant aspect of Hogan's personal life into the equation. Scroll up.I thought we were discussing a First Amendment case, someplace where what's legally right is tantamount.
so its possible that Gawker could have edited the tape to exclude the sex part? Just a hunch.Where exactly do you think the racist comments came from?
There is more than one sex tape.So why did Gawker not just publish the portion of the tape where they allege he went on his racist rant?
Which part of his life is completely irrelevant? Is this or is this not a man that has been the star of two separate reality shows? Has he not been a public figure for going on 40 years?We were until you brought a completely irrelevant aspect of Hogan's personal life into the equation. Scroll up.
The part where his racial statements somehow diminish his legal claim or somehow should lesson people supporting his claim if they believe it has legal merit.Which part of his life is completely irrelevant?
1. Yes they'd be justified in reporting on the existence of a tape IMO.Answer me this, if they hadn't included a clip, would they have been justified in reporting on a celebrity sex tape? Do you think Hogan's emotional distress is appropriately valued at $60M? How about his actual loss of income at $55M?
That's copyright infringement. There's fair use and 2 minutes of a 30 minute tape generally falls under fair use.Sex tapes cannot be published without the consent of the people in them. That is the law (and also why it's funny that people think Kim Kardashian and Paris Wilton werent complicit in the "leaking" of those tapes). Gawker broke the law.
Explain this again - why did the Fappening cease and desist letters have effect and the judge's takedown order in Hogan/Gawker did not?That's copyright infringement. There's fair use and 2 minutes of a 30 minute tape generally falls under fair use.
That's the breakdown of the verdict. The jury claimed Hogan suffered $55M in economic harm.1. Yes they'd be justified in reporting on the existence of a tape IMO.
2. I don't know.
3. I don't know what the question is...are you saying his actual loss of income has been valued at $55mm? If so, I don't know how I could answer that without the detail of what went into the valuation (but then, it wouldn't be "actual")
They removed the video, not the post or the comments.Explain this again - why did the Fappening cease and desist letters have effect and the judge's takedown order in Hogan/Gawker did not?
Unpack this for me.Ramsay Hunt Experience said:Kind of a bad day for the First Amendment.
Because one is a bunch of words and the other is A VIDEO OF TWO PEOPLE ####### WHERE AT LEAST ONE PERSON IS ALLEGED TO NOT HAVE KNOWN HE WAS BEING FILMED YOU MORON.ETA: If they're justified in reporting the tape, would they also be justified in writing a post detailing the contents of the tape? If that's newsworthy, then how is the tape itself not newsworthy?