I'm going to move this here as I don't like to clutter up topic based threads.
inane lawsuits
Interesting.
I think the punishments were harsh, but I didn't think the case was without merit.
While I find celebrity sex tapes (especially of Hulk Hogan) distasteful, I fully support some trash rag publishing them because they are "news." I find the idea of bankrupting a media entity because they show unflattering footage of a reality TV star really gross and think it opens a Pandora's box.
I'm not bemoaning the loss of Gawker (a trash rag that disgustingly outs homosexuals and lowers the level of public discourse), but we've just basically seen a court-validated approach for the next Peter Thiel to go after (insert publication here) because of their political/editorial view.
I think there's a difference between a sex tape that you recorded of you and your partner that you lose control of, and being unknowingly recorded having sex. That Hulk Hogan has sex is not news - he has two children after all (Gawker's editor even said this in deposition). Gawker publishing a video that may have been illegally recorded with the sole purpose of embarrassing an individual for their own profit makes you complicit in the action and cannot be done without consequences. Hiding behind Freedom of the Press when there is no news is an affront to Freedom of the Press, and cannot be a defense to violating other laws.
I did, however, feel that $140 million in damages was excessive, and that a lesser penalty or even settling would have kept Gawker open.
Let me start with the obvious concession that I am a layperson, not a lawyer such as yourself.
That said, I found it most curious that Hogan's thought was to sue, not the person who "illegally" recorded and distributed a sex tape of himself, "Bubba the Love Sponge," but Gawker, a company who had had several courts (if I'm not mistaken) shooting down orders against Gawker showing the footage. It's also curious -- and quite telling, IMO -- that Hogan only claimed the video was shot "illegally" and his privacy was violated once courts shot down his original claim that he had a copyright to the footage.
Also as a layperson, I do think this should fall under fair use by the press and reeks of a roundabout first amendment violation. Hulk Hogan is a public figure who has spoken at length about his sex life. The fact that there is footage of him sleeping with the wives of one of his best friends is newsworthy to someone, I'm sure, albeit not to me. It is not newsworthy that Katy Perry wears underwear but I don't think that means some creepo gossip rag shouldn't be allowed to publish an upskirt photograph just because we were already aware Katy Perry wears underwear. I dunno, I just don't see it that way.
And I agree Gawker would've been smart to settle. I feel the judgment (and especially the ridiculous amount) had more to do with Nick Denton's absurd smug behavior on the stand and saying he found celebrity sex tapes only un-newsworthy "if the person was under 4 years old" or whatever the line was. I really don't believe the jury ruled on this based on any facts so much as going, "well that dudes an ass and his website sounds awful." (Which it is.)
And that is to say nothing to the fact the entire genesis of the case had nothing to do with Hulk Hogan and everything to do with Peter Thiel seeing some way he could pump money into something to try and blow up a website who outed his boorish behavior with regularity.
