Slashdot Mirror


Hulk Hogan Settles With Gawker For $31 Million (go.com)

Gawker Media, which filed for bankruptcy after losing a lawsuit brought by the former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan, has settled the case. The settlement, which court documents indicate is for $31 million, comes less than eight months after a jury awarded Mr. Hogan $140 million in damages in an invasion of privacy case lawsuit over Gawker's publication of a video that showed Hogan having sex with a friend's wife. From a report on ABC: Settlement documents filed at a New York federal bankruptcy court stipulate that Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, will get $31 million plus share with other creditors 45 percent of any additional funds that come into the bankruptcy court by virtue of third-party claims brought by Gawker. Hogan's camp said in a statement: "After almost five years of litigation all parties agreed it was time to resolve this matter. This will allow people to go about their lives and concentrate on things more important than continued court proceedings. As in any case involving negotiation all parties give-and-take. We would like to thank everyone involved in the process." In a blog post on the settlement, Nick Denton, the founder of Gawker Media, wrote: "After four years of litigation funded by a billionaire with a grudge going back even further, a settlement has been reached. The saga is over."

156 comments

  1. quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone leak my sex tape

    neither of us are famous but i'd even take $31

    1. Re:quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't Hulk Hogan have enough money? Economic inequality like this lawsuit and settlement is the reason I gave 31 cents to a beggar this week, and I can't even afford it, because I have no job and no income. I should be the one begging for money.

    2. Re:quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gawker isn't interested unless you're a famous 4 year old.

    3. Re:quick by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative

      he did before his wife took half and he got blacklisted because of gawker.

      just because someone has something doesnt mean if they are wronged they should just deal with it

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he did before his wife took half and he got blacklisted because of gawker.

      Actually his wife left him and took half and he got blacklisted because he fucked another mans wife

      If gawker didn't post the video, that would not negate the fact Hogan still fucked another mans wife and in the process wronged his own wife.

      If Hogan didn't fuck another mans wife however, there would never have been a problem in the first place.

      Also, since you are the type to do so, do not put words in my mouth that I'm claiming gawker didn't do anything wrong here.
      I'm saying the thing gawker did wrong and the thing Hogan did wrong both happened and are both very different wrongs.

      Gawker certainly did violate his privacy by showing proof of his horrible yet legal (I assume they are in his state) actions.
      But Hogan ruined his own marriage by fucking other peoples wives.

    5. Re:quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic, Hulk Hogan fucking your wife should just be considered the cost of being married.

    6. Re:quick by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Supermarkets shouldn't have to just deal with it; we should punish (but not execute, not sure where you're pulling that from, but it says a lot more about you than it does about the person you're replying to) shoplifters when we find them.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    7. Re:quick by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Actually, Gawker published the video after their divorce.

    8. Re:quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too believe people who do wrong should receive no mercy. Execute all jaywalkers!

    9. Re: quick by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      There aren't any laws against adultery, however there are laws against privacy violations.

    10. Re: quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did Gawker set up the video camera?

      No.

      Did Gawker steal the tape?

      No.

      Is Hulk Hogan a public figure?

      Yes.

      Gawker DID NOTHING WRONG.

      They were perfectly within their First Amendment rights to publish the tape. They were hit with a SLAPP lawsuit that they couldn't afford to defend.

    11. Re: quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did Gawker set up the video camera?

      No.

      Did Gawker steal the tape?

      No.

      Is Hulk Hogan a public figure?

      Yes.

      Gawker DID NOTHING WRONG.

      They were perfectly within their First Amendment rights to publish the tape. They were hit with a SLAPP lawsuit that they couldn't afford to defend.

      So they are expected to pay a judgment of $31mil but they can't afford to defend against the lawsuit?! WTF does good representation cost in America?

    12. Re: quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't pay either one, really.

    13. Re: quick by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      You complete fucking moron. What are you talking about?

    14. Re:quick by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 0

      I too believe people who do wrong should receive no mercy. Execute all jaywalkers!

      Execution's too quick.

      Send the jaywalkers to Gitmo!

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    15. Re: quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first amendment says that the government should not stop them publishing, and it did not prevent Gawker from doing so.

    16. Re: quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually his wife got more than half and then what was left was essentially taken by the parents of the kid Hogan's son killed in that car accident so he was pretty much upper middle class by the time this gawker crap started.

      Also having sex with Heather Clem wasn't illegal so why did he lose his WWE job over it?

      He had every right to sue. they put up a tape they had no permission to have. It was stolen by some security guard at Bubba Clems house, a house which has cameras in every room except the bathrooms for security reasons. This is all well documented.

      Neither Hogan or either of the Clems released this footage so it wasn't a money grab.

      Gawker. .they had zero issue posting a video of Hogan having sex or posting Orlando bloom naked on the beach but whenever the same situation happens to a woman they won't post it and then they write 10 articles on how deplorable it is and how sexist we all are.

      Fuck gawker. Fuck Denton, may he rot in hell.

      Hogan has done something Hollywood (no pun intended) has been trying to do for a decade. You're next TMZ.

    17. Re: quick by Outta_the_way_peck! · · Score: 1

      There aren't any laws against adultery, however there are laws against privacy violations.

      Actually it is illegal in 21 states.

    18. Re:quick by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      So right, let's execute shoplifters for stealing food from supermarkets, because the corporations that own the supermarkets have been wronged, and they shouldn't have to just deal with it like shoplifting is a cost of doing business.

      You don't execute shoplifters, but sometimes they get prosecuted, or at least they face a legal penalty. This judgement came down due to the severity of damage (Hogan's reputation and privacy loss), but far more than that, because of Gawker's willfulness and public mocking of court orders they refused to follow. Do that, and punitive damages will be high.

    19. Re: quick by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Adultery is illegal in my state, although if anyone tried to enforce that law it would be struck down so fast.

      What's interesting is that adultery is when a married woman has sex with someone she's not married to. I can go out and screw all the young unmarried woman I physically can and not commit adultery.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. Poor Nick Denton by HBI · · Score: 5, Insightful

    His company was destroyed because he ignored the law. Let's all feel sorry for him. I'm playing the world's smallest violin.

    A boil has been excised from the ass of humanity.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Poor Nick Denton by aevan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey now, Nick had standards! He went on record to state he would 'definitely not publish a sex tape of a four year old. Probably.'

      A pillar of the journalistic community has fallen. Now if only the rest of the rags in that collective of cybertrash would.

    2. Re:Poor Nick Denton by KiloByte · · Score: 1, Insightful

      His company was destroyed because he ignored the law. Let's all feel sorry for him.

      Well, let's see how ignoring the law works for, let's say, Clinton. Hmm... perhaps some animals are more equal than others?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/Nick Denton/Hillary Clinton/; s/company/career/; s/he/she/;

    4. Re:Poor Nick Denton by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yeah sorry but..... no you got things backwards. I take it you were ok with the fappening as well right?

      IMO gawker fucked up by saying the hulk video was fine but not the fappening. either both are, or neither

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re: Poor Nick Denton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even those unprincipled about the application of law deserved protection under it.

      I'd defend 1a rights of a 1a abolitionist movement.

    6. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I always say, "Shut up Napolean - you're just a damn pig."

    7. Re:Poor Nick Denton by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      Sorry, I phrased that very poorly. No, the sex tape shouldn't have been released, the fact that Hogan and Thiel are assholes doesn't make invading their privacy okay. I was only responding to HBI's suggestion that Nick Denton is an asshole so that makes this a good thing.

      "Don't want to get in trouble with your spouse? Don't commit adultery. Don't want to get fired from the WWE for racist comments? Don't use the N word" in particular were absurdly overstated.

      I'm not okay with the fappening. I don't think sending nude pictures of yourself to someone is morally wrong, wheras what Hogan did is. I know though everyone on slashdot is not a lawyer but for some reason assumes everything is put in legal terms, so no, Hogan being a douche shouldn't justify invading his privacy either.

    8. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Gawker is not a media in any shape or form. They are a parasite that leeched of other peoples stories.

    9. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People funding other people's lawsuits is an old practice, and it's very valuable. Without it, the ACLU wouldn't be able to help people sue in civil rights cases, for instance. There's no more possible damage to freedom of the press for this than there is for other lawsuits; if it's without merit, it won't get far, and if the case has merit, then we should celebrate justice happening. Gawker wasn't sued because of good reporting; they were sued because they broke the law and also defied a judge's order to take the tape down after the fact. This case sets no real precedent, and whining that Gawker got punished for breaking the law flagrantly and without remorse is just silly.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    10. Re:Poor Nick Denton by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, tell yourself this was all about one particular asshole and there's no collateral damage possible to freedom of the press or freedom of speech.

      You intend as sarcasm, but that's entirely correct.

      Peter Thiel is straight up evil. By all means, sue gawker for invasion of your privacy, outing a billionaire is not very nice I suppose. Billionaire responding by funding lawsuits against the news organization until it shuts down is censorship by any useful meaning of the word though.

      Thiel did nothing more than exactly the same thing that's done by the EFF and the ACLU: supporting somebody who has a grievance, but lacks the money to pay for lengthy litigation.

      I would have agreed with you if Thiel was supporting completely unfounded lawsuits that had no other purpose than making Gawker lose money by paying for lawyers. But that wasn't the case, Bollea had a very genuine grievance with Gawker, and all Thiel did was contributing money to it. It's not any different than when people fund litigation through aligned organizations (EFF, ACLU), friends and family, or crowdfunding. There's nothing illegal or immoral about it.

      Furthermore what is actually disturbing is the implication that money makes right, and the right situation is where one loses a lawsuit not due to lack of merit, but due to the lack of funding, and that there's something wrong with a third party counteracting this.

    11. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Cruciform · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. Even if you don't like Hogan or Thiel, the funding of legitimate lawsuits is hardly unethical.
      If he was bombing them with nuisance suits for death by a thousand cuts it would be different.
      But Gawker was in the wrong. Allowing those who have grievances with them to proceed freely does absolutely nothing to limit "freedom of the press".

    12. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      Well, let's see how ignoring the law works for, let's say, Clinton. Hmm... perhaps some animals are more equal than others?

      Well that depends on who you Americans vote for in the next what? 7-8 days...doesn't it. Then again, if you elect Hillary, you could see the first women president impeached too.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:Poor Nick Denton by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      that makes much more sense. I find it a tough line. i would wager damn near everyone has said or done something they regret, that shouldnt be grounds for ruining people

      yeah, cheating on your wife with yourbest friends girl (even if he was cool with it and from bubba side before he went silent on the matter he said he was cool with it. and yes he said he didnt want his daughter to marry a n@$%#) is never a good idea. but should doing so get you blacklisted from your job??? I think thats a step too far.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    14. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off you commie shit. Putin isn't paying you enough to troll.

    15. Re:Poor Nick Denton by lgw · · Score: 1, Troll

      Well that depends on who you Americans vote for in the next what? 7-8 days...doesn't it. Then again, if you elect Hillary, you could see the first women president impeached too.

      80% of "Democrats" and "Republicans" are just the Establishment Party, agreeing on the fundamental principle of taking bribes to funnel taxpayer money in return. Oh, they put on a show about stuff they don't care about at all, like gay marriage (where's the money in that?), but they agree on everything "important".

      An angry 20% will never impeach anyone.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re:Poor Nick Denton by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Uh, they posted a video of an event that occurred and was factual. That's not defamation, libel, or slander; it's reporting on the life of public figures. It's long-established that being a public person cuts away a substantial amount of your privacy protection. What laws were broken?

      A Florida Jury found that Gawker violated Hulk Hogan's privacy. Other juries and judges have determined that public figures's privacy can't be violated in that way in many situations. Unless Gawker produced the tape (including hiring someone to have it made, thus invading privacy), it's been long-established that this is simply public gossip about a public figure: a tape was made by Clem (husband of the chick Hogan banged), Clem gave it to Gawker, Gawker published it after Hogan's divorce.

      By early 2012, rumors began circulating “in the radio community about a sex tape starring Hogan and Heather Clem,” Peirce said in his deposition.

      A month later, still images from the tape appeared on the website The Dirty — and Bubba now recognized the canopy bed as his own and knew it was his tape.

      In the fall of 2012, Gawker’s then editor, A.J. Daulerio, received a phone call from Tony Burton, a lawyer who claimed a client of his was interested in mailing him something. A package arrived at the Gawker offices between Sept. 27 and Oct. 4, 2012. There was no return address. Daulerio was on vacation at the time, so the site’s then-managing editor, Emma Carmichael, opened the package and watched the recording inside — it was the sex tape.

      So the sex tape was already a matter of public gossip, some stills were out there, someone sent it to Gawker, Gawker published it. Also Hogan had denied that he would ever bang Heather several times--he liked to talk publicly about his sex life.

      Hogan made his affair with Heather Clem a public matter. He talked around it, he talked about his sex life in general, he pointed out that she was hot but claimed he wouldn't get on her because she's another dude's wife, and so forth. "Turns out you fucked her brains out!" is actually reasonable information to publish, and somehow that sex tape got made and got floated around.

      It's a thin case for you and me; and it's a completely-different ballgame for someone famous who's baited the public interest.

    17. Re:Poor Nick Denton by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      How is what Hogan did morally-wrong? Bubba Clem was watching and operating the camera while Hogan fucked his wife! He brought her over for the pow-wow!

    18. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like every other sjw..

    19. Re:Poor Nick Denton by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uh, they posted a video of an event that occurred and was factual. That's not defamation, libel, or slander; it's reporting on the life of public figures. It's long-established that being a public person cuts away a substantial amount of your privacy protection. What laws were broken?

      A Florida Jury found that Gawker violated Hulk Hogan's privacy. Other juries and judges have determined that public figures's privacy can't be violated in that way in many situations. Unless Gawker produced the tape (including hiring someone to have it made, thus invading privacy), it's been long-established that this is simply public gossip about a public figure: a tape was made by Clem (husband of the chick Hogan banged), Clem gave it to Gawker, Gawker published it after Hogan's divorce.

      By early 2012, rumors began circulating âoein the radio community about a sex tape starring Hogan and Heather Clem,â Peirce said in his deposition.

      A month later, still images from the tape appeared on the website The Dirty â" and Bubba now recognized the canopy bed as his own and knew it was his tape.

      In the fall of 2012, Gawkerâ(TM)s then editor, A.J. Daulerio, received a phone call from Tony Burton, a lawyer who claimed a client of his was interested in mailing him something. A package arrived at the Gawker offices between Sept. 27 and Oct. 4, 2012. There was no return address. Daulerio was on vacation at the time, so the siteâ(TM)s then-managing editor, Emma Carmichael, opened the package and watched the recording inside â" it was the sex tape.

      So the sex tape was already a matter of public gossip, some stills were out there, someone sent it to Gawker, Gawker published it. Also Hogan had denied that he would ever bang Heather several times--he liked to talk publicly about his sex life.

      Hogan made his affair with Heather Clem a public matter. He talked around it, he talked about his sex life in general, he pointed out that she was hot but claimed he wouldn't get on her because she's another dude's wife, and so forth. "Turns out you fucked her brains out!" is actually reasonable information to publish, and somehow that sex tape got made and got floated around.

      It's a thin case for you and me; and it's a completely-different ballgame for someone famous who's baited the public interest.

      Not really.

      You ignored one simple fact - Gawker was ordered to take down the video. They said they won't.

      Sure the tape may be factual evidence, but when a judge orders you to take it down during your lawsuit, you take it down.

      It doesn't matter who's right or wrong in the matter - the judge said to do it, so you do it to avoid the wrath of the judge.

      In fact, this one act of defiance likely is what brought the damages up. Gawker got away pretty light - the judge could've found them in contempt and instead all they got was enhanced damages.

    20. Re:Poor Nick Denton by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 0

      People funding other people's lawsuits is an old practice, and it's very valuable. Without it, the ACLU wouldn't be able to help people sue in civil rights cases, for instance.

      That sounds like another argument against it.

    21. Re:Poor Nick Denton by immortalcrab · · Score: 1

      Damn editors and their self censorship!

    22. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So:
      a) if the issue is that Gawker disobeyed the court that is the problem, then why is Hogan owed a single red cent? The fine should be to the state. Hogan should be SoL.
      and
      b) under what legal authority does the court use to be able to order the suppression of Gawker's first amendment rights? The powers of the judiciary are determined by congress, and congress does not have the right to shut someone up without convicting them. The judges order was illegal, therefore, not following it was not a crime.

    23. Re:Poor Nick Denton by johanw · · Score: 0

      > Don't want to get fired from the WWE for racist comments? Don't use the N word.

      As if the public that watches WWE are SJW's. If he doesn't like niiggers, who's to blame him? They infest too many parts of this planet.

    24. Re:Poor Nick Denton by johanw · · Score: 1

      Legal authority? US judges are known to keep the tradition that Roy Bean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Bean) alive.

    25. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Wuhao · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sorry, did Peter Thiel force them to illegally publish a sex tape? Did Peter Thiel then force them to openly defy court orders to remove it? Did Peter Thiel force them to repeatedly mislead the court in such a way that the judge could not in good conscience allow them to post a bond to delay payment until their appeal could be processed?

      No, of course not. Peter Thiel did none of those things, and yet, those are the things that put Gawker in this position. So instead of being mad at Peter Thiel, who critics still can't puzzle out a way to actually accuse of any real wrongdoing other than "he helped a victim of a serious crime get justice from the serial offenders who wronged him," perhaps you should be mad at the ACTUAL evil people who will unlawfully publish secret recordings of people having sex and saying things post-coitus that aren't popular so they can profit off the destruction of their careers.

    26. Re:Poor Nick Denton by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I know plenty of black wrestling fans.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    27. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gawker owner and top leaders should server jail time, along public officials who obstruct justice, providing information to citizens, and lying in official capacity (Do we really want to put an Impeached President back into the white house? USA is not a dynasty, don't let multiple family members be president....including the Bush's)

    28. Re:Poor Nick Denton by arth1 · · Score: 1

      A Florida Jury found that Gawker violated Hulk Hogan's privacy. Other juries and judges have determined that public figures's privacy can't be violated in that way in many situations.

      I don't think any juries and judges have ever considered having sex in private as one of those "many situations".

    29. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under what law did Gawker have permission to publish or present the tape? If the tape is stolen it would still be a huge violation of copyright and each distribution of the video could be up to $150k.. (how many views did it have while online?)

      Invasion of privacy *may* be ok if you are reporting on something that's newsworthy, but to publish just for the shock-value is not newsworthy so using that for shaming someone publicly is not ok.

      All that Gawker did was to try and profit from sensational "journalism".. They did not give a crap about what was newsworthy or even what was straight up lies....

    30. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Kkloe · · Score: 1

      Well yes, any other questions?

    31. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Then you're probably better off voting for the non-establishment candidate, that has pissed everyone off aren't you? And hope he leans on the FBI and gets rid of the corruption at the top of the DOJ so that indictments can be put into place.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    32. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Ha! Well, I can't say I agree with everything the ACLU does, but they have been useful and I'm glad they can help people who may need it.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    33. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So: b) under what legal authority does the court use to be able to order the suppression of Gawker's first amendment rights? The powers of the judiciary are determined by congress, and congress does not have the right to shut someone up without convicting them. The judges order was illegal, therefore, not following it was not a crime.

      C'mon, don't be daft. There are dozens of scenarios where a court can and will limit or restrict speech for perfectly legitimate reasons. Preliminary injunctions, gag orders, courtroom camera bans, etc. If you want more information, walk into your nearest courtroom and talk loudly over the proceedings for awhile and I'm sure the judge will happily educate you on your 1st amendment rights in court.

    34. Re:Poor Nick Denton by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You seem to miss the point that we are talking about a sex tape here.

      Reporting about public figures only matters for public events, not for their private live or their sex life.

      Perhaps you should reread your court rulings very carefully to understand the difference.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    35. Re:Poor Nick Denton by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that Hogan's wife was not okay with the thing. I think it is wrong to hurt your spouse like that. And racism is morally wrong.

    36. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it make you feel good to go around here posting N so much? Are you proud of yourself?

    37. Re:Poor Nick Denton by lgw · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree. I think the US has a limited number of years left to get a credible non-establishment foothold in government before less appealing options than democracy start unfolding. I don't think it will be Trump, but his supporters aren't going anywhere, and I'm hopeful we'll see less crazy non-establishment candidates in coming election years.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    38. Re:Poor Nick Denton by lgw · · Score: 1

      WTF is with /. mods these days? Pointing out the US government is pretty darn corrupt is "trolling" now? Really?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    39. Re:Poor Nick Denton by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Oh, I didn't catch that Gawker disobeyed a prior court order.

    40. Re:Poor Nick Denton by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing whether Gawker is worth a shit or not; I'm arguing whether or not they violated what we expect as our law here. I didn't know they were ordered to remove the video (fat lot of good that does, anyway; and I have issues with that, without more data), and have no defense for that; and for the simple concept of "invasion of privacy", it's been well-established that public figures have less privacy, and sex tapes and other embarrassing publications have happened frequently enough.

      To say Gawker invaded Hogan's privacy would tangentially also imply Linda Tripp invaded Bill Clinton's privacy. The President's job is foreign policy and executive branch office; getting a blowjob from a 19-year-old intern falls squarely outside "newsworthy", except for gossip about the President as a celebrity. That did actual damage: it caused a useless impeachment trial, largely because Clinton lied under oath about something irrelevant anyway.

      The simple difference is we didn't have pictures of Clinton. As for pictures of Hogan... he denied he'd ever bang another man's wife; accusing him of doing just that under the pretense that you have a video you won't show "for privacy" is essentially bullshit. Meanwhile, nobody's claimed Gawker invaded Heather or Bubba Clem's privacy, and claiming they haven't in this argument would be logically-inconsistent; at the same time, claiming Gawker publishing only a text column detailing what they can confirm of Hogan's sex life without a video is any different in terms of privacy from publishing the video is also logically-inconsistent.

      We don't crush people we simply don't like. Tolerance is a level-4 defense mechanism, categorized as a "mature" behavior; that means grown-ups complain about things they don't agree with, but allow them so long as they don't affect us directly. Immature, overgrown children lash out at people and behaviors they don't like; and separating similar behaviors so you can categorize one invasion of privacy as "good" and the other as "bad" is pathological. The fact is the press reports on anything they can find out about celebrities, most of which is none of our damned business, and most of which nobody has a problem with even though it's an enormous cost you pay when you become famous. Crying that Gawker wasn't good-people and deserved to be blown out of existence for behaving in ways we don't like is childish and uncivil.

    41. Re:Poor Nick Denton by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      There have been a lot of private naked-photos and celebrity sex tape leaks; and we get to hear all kinds of gossip without pictures, like when Bill Clinton got a blowjob. If the press found out Angelina Jolie was cougaring up a college football team, they'd have it on the front page of everything that would print it--and it would just be "news" (well, what passes for news), and not "invasion of privacy".

    42. Re:Poor Nick Denton by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Reporting about public figures is a constant. Have you never been to a supermarket? Magazine covers are full of gossip about who cheated on who, who has a secret sex-party life, who is getting a divorce, and whatnot. If the Olsen Twins get drunk and take turns screwing three guys at a party, the press will have it on ABC, CNN, and Fox News the next day, if they can get an interview with anyone at the party. They'll even publish someone's cellphone recording of the girls walking off into the back room with studs in tow.

      Of course Ashley is a little angel; it's Mary Kate who's the cocaine-fueled nightmare whore, and I think she's since broken her crack habit.

    43. Re:Poor Nick Denton by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard his wife's position on everything. The last I heard was that Hogan was already going through rough times and facing divorce, while Heather was all over him--a common enough behavior, where a girl gets wind that your relationship is over and she's already trying to get on your dick before you finish signing the papers. Maybe that wasn't what was going on; but it's what I heard. As it stands, though, I simply ignore that point because the information I have on it is thin and doesn't have iron-clad credibility.

      Whether boning another woman is okay when your current girl has already decided you're done is a grey area. People do stupid shit like both concluding that the relationship is ending, and then considering themselves still in a relationship for weeks or months once they've already decided it's over, before finally officiating it. I think that's a lot of horse shit.

    44. Re:Poor Nick Denton by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Name a time Clinton deliberately ignored the law and we'll talk.

      You know what would happen if you were negligent and let classified data out? You'd have a good chance of losing your clearance, perhaps temporarily. You could lose your job. Your annual review probably will not be pleasant. You won't get prosecuted.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    45. Re:Poor Nick Denton by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's been a lot of leaked nude photos and sex tapes, but that doesn't mean they were legal. Also, there's a difference between a juicy report of Jolie and the team and a video of the activity in the locker room.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    46. Re:Poor Nick Denton by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      You're assuming negligence where malice is obvious. She did it to hide her illegal actions from possible prosecution. The US isn't Russia, yet -- she can't assassinate, spy on and otherwise abuse government agencies against her political opponents in the open yet. She does deeply envy Putin, though, and does everything she can do turn most of the western world into a Russia-like hellhole. Her and her buddies' tentacles reach far beyond borders of the US.

      Her opponent is merely an incompetent buffoon, quite a step down from the Second Coming of Adolf. And I'm not joking here -- take a look at Eich, Thiel, Snowden, Assange -- the rhetoric and actions of Hillary's supporters are dangerously close to what Jews of 1933 faced.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    47. Re:Poor Nick Denton by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Does mot make it leagal when the photos or phone records are aquired by illegal means ...
      And no, I don't read those magazines ... I'm to concerned about my next hardware I want to acquire :)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    48. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't speak for the previous poster but as for me, the fappening was a gift from heaven. Seeing many of the celebs I like in the nude in such a raw and unfiltered way has ensured most of the pics have kept a permanent place on my HDD.

      That's not to say I approve of the nature of the leaks. I'm not victim blaming either - it was a bad thing for all involved. But I'm not going to be pious and pretend that I didn't receive a certain level of enjoyment over going through all those pics. One can recognize it's a bad thing and yet partake it in at the same time. It's called having loose morals, which I'm accepting of since I'm human like everyone else.

    49. Re:Poor Nick Denton by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I'm hopeful we'll see less crazy non-establishment candidates in coming election years.

      This thing has been building in the US for at least a decade now. The previous non-establishment candidate you guys had was Ron Paul and all his crazy, with the BS being pushed by the elites? Trump is probably the least extreme candidate you're going to see. It's only downhill from there, if you need a primer or example? Look at the state of Europe with the rise of actual fascist parties again, and said parties gaining because the left and establishment are either attacking them--or saying "things really aren't that bad."

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    50. Re:Poor Nick Denton by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In other words, you're constructing cloud castle indictments in your mind. You are assuming you know her motives, and apparently that she deliberately set things up to leave classified documents on her server, which is ludicrous. She hasn't assassinated anyone; she's just known a lot of people who have died of various causes. I haven't heard anything serious about the State Department spying on people, and the only serious abuse of government power I've seen has been Comey's against her.

      Having devoted some time to studying Hitler's rise to power, much of Trump's rhetoric is similar to Hitler's. Trump doesn't appear to be an ideologue like Hitler, and he's definitely not as smart. He is appealing to the same sort of people.

      It is possible to get people angry at you without Clinton having to intervene. I haven't noticed Clinton or her campaign getting involved with Eich or Thiel. Snowden has plenty of people both for and against him, and Assange is, among other things, a paranoid anti-US asshole - you know, the type that Republicans hated when I was a kid. The other big difference that you're missing is that vituperation against an individual, for something the individual does, is very different from vituperation against a race or religion.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    51. Re:Poor Nick Denton by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      much of Trump's rhetoric is similar to Hitler's

      Newsflash: it's not Trump who's acts like Hitler.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    52. Re:Poor Nick Denton by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The report, published as news, of a non-celebrity would be an invasion of privacy. Also, is it an invasion of privacy when a well-known video already being circulated is in question? You've already lost control of that.

      Someone suggested it'd be copyright at best. They're probably right.

    53. Re:Poor Nick Denton by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Not from where I sit. Trump pushes an irrational ideology, with lack of specifics, extreme nationalism, and vilification of identifiable minority groups. Clinton doesn't do that.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    54. Re:Poor Nick Denton by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Actually, once someone has published something not claimed as a copyrighted creative work, it's no longer private and no longer acquired by illegal means. It must be an illegal video (child pornography) after that point.

      Before Gawker received the video, it was already circulating without the authorization of Hogan and Clem. Gawker put it into wider circulation, which is technically the same thing as what anyone who distributes anything at any point ever is doing; however, there is an argument that Gawker put it into significantly-wider circulation, moving from "a thing you can find if you dig enough, which most people have been hearing about and only a significantly-large minority have actually obtained" to "it's in everyone's hands now". That is most likely more of a defamation issue, whereas the original acquisition and distribution would have been considered theft.

      These cases are largely a matter of venue. If you get a sympathetic judge and jury, they give you different outcomes. "Secret videos" and "leaked photographs" have been mainstays of cheap celebrity gossip for ages, and have gone unchallenged largely because every challenge is essentially laughed out of court. That doesn't mean a judge won't occasionally bring the hammer down or, in this case, that a defendant won't stupidly elect for a jury trial so the plaintiff can cry sympathy.

    55. Re:Poor Nick Denton by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Actually, once someone has published something not claimed as a copyrighted creative work, it's no longer private and no longer acquired by illegal means.
      That is nonsense. Publishing does not remove copyrights. Otherwise every movie in the theaters had no copyright and all about the DMCA etc. would be mood.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    56. Re:Poor Nick Denton by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Laura Schlessinger sued for copyright infringement and privacy invasion when her boyfriend sold her nudes to a porn site in 1998. He had a judge preside over that trial. The judge told her copyright infringement doesn't work and she's a public figure and doesn't get that kind of privacy protection.

      Gawker published Hulk Hoagan's naked sex video in 2015, and then got sued. The idiot lawyer requested a jury trial, and the plaintiff cried crocodile tears for sympathy.

      Do you see this post? I'm publishing this post. If you copy and paste it elsewhere, I can't sue you for copyright violation. Slashdot posts at the bottom: "Comments owned by the poster"; however, by publishing this into a public forum, I'm not only publishing a written work not claimed as a copyright work, but I'm publishing in a manner which is common-law considered to be non-copyrightable due to the nature of the material. This post isn't a creative work.

      Your titty pictures and private sex tapes aren't creative works, either. Generally, unless it's a pornographic production you created for publication, sex tapes and nudie photos aren't creative works and aren't claimed or claimable as copyrighted.

      By contrast, movies in theaters are creative works published as copyrighted material. They're made for publication--they're works. People did work to make them for the purpose of creating a creative work. Their existence isn't incidental of someone's drunken frat party, nor is it selected after-the-fact to be publicized as a property of the creators. At no point prior to its publication was it worked--produced as a creative work, or evaluated for publication as a creative work.

      Think about that next time you send a text message: your text message isn't protected by copyright.

    57. Re:Poor Nick Denton by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Laura Schlessinger sued for copyright infringement and privacy invasion when her boyfriend sold her nudes to a porn site in 1998. He had a judge preside over that trial. The judge told her copyright infringement doesn't work and she's a public figure and doesn't get that kind of privacy protection.
      Then the judge was wrong.

      Of course she could not sue on copyright issues, as obviously the BF made the movie so most of it was copyrighted by him. However as a participant (regardless if voluntarily or not) she also owns copyrights.

      Regarding being a publics figure, the judge/jury was wrong. Period. Private is private, and not public.

      Generally, unless it's a pornographic production you created for publication, sex tapes and nudie photos aren't creative works and aren't claimed or claimable as copyrighted.
      This is an extremely far sketched idea ... might be true perhaps in the USA ... not true in Europe.

      Think about that next time you send a text message: your text message isn't protected by copyright.
      That is wrong. Of course it is protected by copyright. You can cite it, but not copy it. And if you are referring to /. I suggest to scroll down the page and read what is written in the lower right corner.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    58. Re:Poor Nick Denton by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Well it's been determined and upheld that public figures have less of a claim to privacy because everybody is trying to get in on their private life. You seem to not like this, but legally you're wrong.

      Of course it is protected by copyright. You can cite it, but not copy it. And if you are referring to /. I suggest to scroll down the page and read what is written in the lower right corner.

      Do you mean the part where I said, "Slashdot posts at the bottom: 'Comments owned by the poster'"? Yes, I said that in my last message. Read it again.

      I also said you will lose any copyright case in any court attempting to claim copyright infringement on comments you made in a public forum. If I copy a bunch of Slashdot discussions into a book and sell it as an omnibus on social commentary, Slashdot has no claim because they don't own those messages. If the individual posters come to sue for infringement, they will all lose because their statements in a public forum are not copyrightable.

      Your comments here are non-copyrightable for the same reason everything you say is non-copyrightable. If you are at a party and you start talking at length about the presidency, someone can publish a book with a written transcript of everything you said, and it's not copyrightable; yet if you publish a written transcript of song lyrics, speeches, or the dialogue of plays and movies, that is covered by copyright--even though those things were not delivered as written transcript, but as spoken language. A transcription is a derivative work.

      Your comments here are not a creative work; they're dialogue. You can copyright literary works; musical works, including any accompanying words; dramatic works, including any accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; and architectural works. Impromptu speeches and discourses delivered are not considered copyrightable; because dialogue is made in text on the Internet, dialogue in a discussion forum is an impromptu speech or dialogue, and non-copyrightable.

      This is all legally well-understood.

    59. Re:Poor Nick Denton by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      also said you will lose any copyright case in any court attempting to claim copyright infringement on comments you made in a public forum.
      And you are wrong with that.

      I might lose in some obscure court in the US. But definitely not in all of them and absolutely not in any European court.

      Your comments here are non-copyrightable for the same reason everything you say is non-copyrightable

      I suggest to simply read the copyright law. Facepalm. It is obvious that everything I write is copyrighted. You must be absolutely not familiar with such laws.

      Your comments here are not a creative work; they're dialogue.
      What a creative work is, is defined in Copy Right Law, I suggest to read it. There is no particular "level of creativity" required.

      because dialogue is made in text on the Internet, dialogue in a discussion forum is an impromptu speech or dialogue, and non-copyrightable.
      This is nonsense. Especially as not every public post in a forum is a dialog. What is the next level of your idiotic? A blog post is no longer under copyright? And when I change the web address of my hosting site to "New York times dot com" it suddenly is again under copyright?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    60. Re:Poor Nick Denton by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing: comments on a forum have never been successfully defended in U.S. courts. Speeches--being the creative work of a speechwriter--have been defended; but the USCO has determined speeches given but not written down aren't copyrightable because they aren't a fixed work--even though those speeches are recorded through the incident of being at a public event. The recording is copyrighted--to whoever owned the camera (e.g. CBS); the speech wasn't prepared and fixated, so isn't copyrighted.

      Were you to record your speech and then televise it, the recorded speech and its transcript would be copyrighted. It's also copyrighted to you if you have your own people record it, if you had planned to give a speech; yet doing the same in a debate fails to produce a copyrighted work for the speaker, because the speaker's dialogue wasn't a prepared work, and is an incident of the venue (but not owned by the venue).

      So the law essentially says speeches are copyright, but not if they're basically given on-the-spot or from memory of a worked speech which you hadn't previously fixated by writing it down or recording it yourself, except in the case where you had appeared on the occasion for the purpose of giving a speech and having it recorded as a fixed work.

      Slashdot is a venue. You're having a discussion, which is dialogue. That dialogue is becoming a fixed work at that time. As per the above behavior with speeches and debates, this would be non-copyrightable; and, additionally, the venue only engages through the medium of a fixed work--that is, you can only communicate on the Internet by creating a fixed work (a recording, text, etc.)--therefor jurisprudence would suggest that copyrightability of publicized discussions on the Internet should examine if they are substantially-similar to verbal public discussion. They are.

      The only people who have ever claimed forum posts, youtube comments, and the like are copyrightable are forums operators and forum users discussing the copyrightability of their posts. No court has ever found in favor of copyright action against the impromptu text of a forum discussion--although any images you upload as attachments and whatnot, or any works contained therein (e.g. poetry), are obviously copyrightable because they are a separate work embedded into a discussion.

      Copyrightability hinges essentially on what is considered a "creative work". A discussion is not considered a creative work. To claim copyright, you must claim that something isn't a discussion.

    61. Re:Poor Nick Denton by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      In most parts of the world, courts are irrelevant for simple matters like this. The law is relevant.
      And regarding copyright or Urheberrecht (in german) all my posts are under (my) copyright, and so is anything I do with my mind and express with my mouth, body, fingers or any tool at hand.
      It does mot matter if it is in a discussion, and your way to bring this topic forward makes no sense to me. But perhaps you are right in your judisdiction, I pitty you then.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    62. Re:Poor Nick Denton by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      America has the concept of case law, in which we determine what the law was supposed to do, and whether it makes sense in context. That's why we have things like the reasonable person test, and why we might identify that "conversation is not copyrightable" and "conversation is only possible via written word in this context" would lead a court to decide that said written word is not copyright, while also pointing to a poem in the middle of said written word and claiming that is a creative work and is thus copyrighted even though everything else in the message isn't.

      If it didn't work that way, you could lie in courts and commit fraud under the defense of freedom of expression. A lot of Americans like to abuse the ideal of freedom of speech and claim a bunch of legal shit because of a lack of understanding of the law like that. That misunderstanding is also why we got the whole religion argument (e.g. a courtroom can't display a religious symbol like a cross or a statue in America): people interpreted "freedom of religion" by way of "congress shall make no law restricting the free exercise of religion" to mean "freedom from religion", and claimed separation of church and state is in the constitution, and that the government can in no way display any sort of religion-related thing. The courts actually upheld that one, even though it's ludicrous.

      Our legal system is complex because case law overrides all law, including constitutional law--the Supreme Court will rule on if a ruling or law is constitutional, and thus decide what the constitution means by what it says. State law trumps Federal law, except we pretend it doesn't; and constitutional law outlines the limits of Federal and State legal powers, including that any powers neither explicitly granted to the Federal government nor forbidden from the States fall to the States or the people in the states. Then you have loonies who think the Constitution is a perfect, inviolable, holy scripture that can in no way be incorrect or sub-optimal, and claim anything they don't like is wrong because "it's unconstitutional". They seem to forget the constitution originally allowed states to ban women and black people from voting--things we fixed by a complicated legal process of ratifying new amendments to the constitution by a vote of the states.

      Our laws are complex. Our legal system has some serious flaws.

  3. I leak ON my sex tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because I had loose bowels that day.

  4. Cry me a river, Nick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Jennifer Lawrence pics = BAD AND EVERYONE WHO LOOKED AT THEM SHOULD FEEL BAD. Hulk's sex tape = FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

    Live by the douchebag, die by the douchebag. And this big ball of dirt keeps on spinning.

    1. Re:Cry me a river, Nick. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The guy got off lightly. In some places publishing video of people having sex without their consent is a crime.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. How can the media go on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a sad, sad day for media outlets, and journalism in general.

    How can we exist as a democracy when the public isn't going to be allowed to see stolen sex tapes of washed up celebrities? This is going to have a chilling effect on news outlets everwhere.

    Think of all the sex tapes hidden from the public of washed up celebrities that will now never come to light because of this censorship! There could be sex tapes of Charo giving a blowjob to John Davidson stolen by Danny Bonaduce, and we'll never see them! It's shocking, shocking I say! There could be a sex tape of Corrie Haim giving a reacharound to Corey Feldman! A double Correy sex tape, and we may never see it! How will modern journalism, nay democracy survive!

    1. Re:How can the media go on? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      You missed their brilliant expose that Donald Trump's hair was probably an absurdly expensive, shitty looking weave.

      Anyway, I get it, we should wait to cry foul when a real, respectable news organization gets taken down by a billionaire with a grudge. Just so we're clear, which news organizations are the good guys? I want to be ready, so I'll need a list of the good ones.

    2. Re: How can the media go on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can start with the ones that don't publish stolen sex tapes

    3. Re:How can the media go on? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      We can start by saying the ones that publish sex tapes without permission are not the good guys, and deal with other cases as they arise. Thiel was helping someone who had a legitimate grievance against Gawker get justice. It's not like he filed a bunch of illegitimate lawsuits to try to bankrupt them with legal fees.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    4. Re:How can the media go on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anyway, I get it, we should wait to cry foul when a real, respectable news organization gets taken down by a billionaire with a grudge. Just so we're clear, which news organizations are the good guys? I want to be ready, so I'll need a list of the good ones.

      It doesn't matter whether they're 'good' or 'bad'. If they act the same way then they should be treated accordingly. If the BBC had posted the Hogan sex tape instead then absolutely they should be paying the damages. Is this really that confusing for you?

    5. Re:How can the media go on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just so we're clear, which news organizations are the good guys?
      The ones that follow the law? Gawker is sleazy, but that's not why they got taken down. It really doesn't have a hell of a lot to do with billionaires, good guys, or bad guys. It's a simple matter of following the law. IIRC the video in question was ordered by the court to be taken down. Gawker didn't.

      The above joke is about the justification given for the story. Newsworthyness. The argument Gawker made was that the story was newsworthy because Hogan made some reference to his sex life. That's extremely laughable for a washed up celebrity that hasn't been relevant for years.

    6. Re:How can the media go on? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Your sig points out "nobody is always right." I suspect that every single news organization of any decent caliber, that has been around for much time, has people who think they have legitimate grievances. All of them seem to be made up of people, and in my experience, all people make mistakes.

      I'm not sure what the best way to resolve Hogan's fair complaint with making sure news organizations don't get shut down, but that WAS Thiel's stated goal here, if I'm not mistaken, was to shut down Gawker.

      The Washington Post published Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative, ending her career. To me that's more serious an offense than leaking a sex tape. Should the Washington Post be closed for this mistake?

    7. Re:How can the media go on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a sad, sad day for media outlets, and journalism in general.

      How can we exist as a democracy when the public isn't going to be allowed to see stolen sex tapes of washed up celebrities? This is going to have a chilling effect on news outlets everwhere.

      Think of all the sex tapes hidden from the public of washed up celebrities that will now never come to light because of this censorship! There could be sex tapes of Charo giving a blowjob to John Davidson stolen by Danny Bonaduce, and we'll never see them! It's shocking, shocking I say! There could be a sex tape of Corrie Haim giving a reacharound to Corey Feldman! A double Correy sex tape, and we may never see it! How will modern journalism, nay democracy survive!

      What if this had been a video tape of Clinton in a private function saying how all black people were poor stupid people, or if it had been a video tape of Trump at a private party saying how he was thankful for the billions that Putin has provided to him over the years? Both could easily make an argument that they were private tapes and should never be released.

      "But that's different." Well, yes it is... but where do you draw the line? Even if you could, how many fewer news organizations would be willing to release a tape of such a thing after the result of this court case, knowing they could face a multi-million dollar lawsuit which even if they win will probably cost them hundreds-of-thousands in legal fees?

      I fail to see how people can celebrate the (granted, slight) curtailing of free speech; but then again I don't know too many details of this case. Maybe Nick Denton and Gawker really were that reprehensible that they should be shot down. Barring details, though, I'll err on the side of free speech and mourn this court result.

    8. Re:How can the media go on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it were up to me, the identity of EVERY CIA operative would be published on the front page of the New York Times.

      We can put the NSA scum on page two, the DEA scum on page three, and the FBI scum on page four.

      I've said it before and I'll say it again:

      GAWKER DID NOTHING WRONG.

      EVERYTHING they did was constitutionally protected.

      THE JUDGE WAS WRONG.

      The only reason they're settling now is because they are destroyed. There's nothing left to defend.

      The only positive thing here is that this sets no precedent, there's no case law to be cited by future scum billionaires to destroy more media organizations.

    9. Re:How can the media go on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Gawker followed the law.

      The judge did not.

    10. Re:How can the media go on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might have followed the law *if* they actually owned the sex-tape..... This is also a clear violation of copyright since they did not own the rights to distribute the video.

    11. Re: How can the media go on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a legitimate public interest defence in those cases, but there isn't much of a public interest defence in this case. Where it might have been was if Hogan was running for public office on a platform of making adultery illegal, but he wasn't.

    12. Re:How can the media go on? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Your sig points out "nobody is always right." I suspect that every single news organization of any decent caliber, that has been around for much time, has people who think they have legitimate grievances. All of them seem to be made up of people, and in my experience, all people make mistakes.

      I agree with this so far.

      I'm not sure what the best way to resolve Hogan's fair complaint with making sure news organizations don't get shut down, but that WAS Thiel's stated goal here, if I'm not mistaken, was to shut down Gawker.

      Here's the thing: Thiel apparently did want to destroy Gawker, you're right. However, it wouldn't have been possible for him to do so if they weren't making more than their fair share of mistakes. They might not have had to file for bankruptcy if they had taken the trial seriously from the start - Nick Denton's (allegedly flippant) comment about probably not publishing the sex tape of a four year old didn't do them any favors, and neither did refusing the initial order to take the tape down. All throughout, they acted unrepentant.

      More to the point - sex tapes are covered by additional laws relating to publication, while identities of government workers/operatives are not. Things that are in the "public interest" are okay, like telling people Anthony Weiner was sexting inappropriately, but publishing the images themselves would likely not have been. If Gawker had stuck to telling people that a sex tape exists, they would have been fine. That's the line we've drawn as a society. You can argue that they shouldn't be considered that different, but that's separate from this discussion.

      I guess ultimately I'd say that Gawker got (partially) destroyed not because they made one mistake, but because they made a lot of them, flagrantly and without remorse until it was clear they would lose.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    13. Re:How can the media go on? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Release of sexually explicit images without the consent of the person(s) depicted is not, at this point, Constitutionally-protected speech. Gawker did a lot of things *wrong*, but the judge - who probably has a lot more legal training than you do, and has heard the arguments - found that what the suit also had enough merit to succeed.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    14. Re:How can the media go on? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The Washington Post published Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative, ending her career. To me that's more serious an offense than leaking a sex tape.

      Gawker would not have gotten into much trouble if they'd just reported that Hogan had extra-marital sex. That would be the analogy to Valerie Plame.
      But Gawker published the tape. And then they refused a court order afterwards. I don't think there's really any parallel to the Valerie Plame case in that situation.

  6. Rolling Stone to be shut down next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking forward to the liars at Rolling Stone being sued into the doghouse over their "gang rape on broken glass" agitprop hit piece.

  7. The party I have the least respect for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    after reading this, is Terry Bollea. The fucker cheats on his own wife and that of his friend, then plays the victim to the tune of $140 million, as if that would be a fair amount of the DAMAGES CAUSED TO HIM. Money-greedy petty fucking Americans.

    1. Re:The party I have the least respect for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He is just a well payed pawn in this.

      If your Business is pissing off people rich enough to sue you out of business, Be careful who you Piss off.

    2. Re:The party I have the least respect for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they were in open relationship, or something?

      Anyway, she can divorce him and probably get some of this money, so it's a win for everyone!

    3. Re:The party I have the least respect for by mattyj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Doesn't matter, status of the relationship, regardless of how skeezy it is. In the US, you can't publish a sex tape without the consent of everyone that's in it. That's really the only question here. I'm not a fan of anyone in this story, but Gawker willfully, purposely, knowingly, blatantly broke the law. I'm no celebrity but as someone who likes his privacy, I'm pretty glad they got sued and lost.

      It's interesting. When you see these 'leaked' sex tapes of celebrities that _aren't_ suing Gawker media, that's not a leak. That's a consensual, for-profit marketing ploy for said celeb.

    4. Re: The party I have the least respect for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In a just society the little people gawker bullied, fucked over and broke the law exposing (like a college student sec tape she begged to have taken down) would have shut this company down years ago. The sad thing is a bigger billonaire bully had to be annoyed before justice could be done against the mere millionaire gawker assholes who repeatedly broke the law and caused misery to line their pockets.

    5. Re:The party I have the least respect for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the guilty party in this case is the friend and his wife. In the third video they made, not the one that was posted on Gawker, they discuss blackmailing Hogan with the tapes.

    6. Re:The party I have the least respect for by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      His friend was fine with it; it was an open marriage. I don't think Bollea's wife was okay with it, but I still have less respect for Gawker than I do for him.

      The $140M wasn't just because of damages caused to him (although it did hurt his career, and he was well-paid at one point); it was also because Gawker refused a judge's order to take down the tape. Punitive damages are a thing, and judges tend to get mad when you don't listen to them.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    7. Re:The party I have the least respect for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


        In the US, you can't publish a sex tape without the consent of everyone that's in it.

      That's not exactly true. One of the tests (and this is what Gawker parthetically argued) is newsworthiness, and public interest. So publishing a sex tape of Donald Trump groping women would be perfectly legal even without Trump's consent. But Hogan is a washed up celebrity that's been out of the spotlight for a decade or more. There's no public angle here at all. Gawker lost that argument, and that's why they're shelling out 31 mill.

    8. Re:The party I have the least respect for by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter, status of the relationship, regardless of how skeezy it is. In the US, you can't publish a sex tape without the consent of everyone that's in it. That's really the only question here. I'm not a fan of anyone in this story, but Gawker willfully, purposely, knowingly, blatantly broke the law. I'm no celebrity but as someone who likes his privacy, I'm pretty glad they got sued and lost.

      It's interesting. When you see these 'leaked' sex tapes of celebrities that _aren't_ suing Gawker media, that's not a leak. That's a consensual, for-profit marketing ploy for said celeb.

      Or an entity that can't be sued (anonymous torrent post, etc). But I agree, in most cases, sex tapes are probably authorized by the C-list celebrity.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  8. Millionaires by Princeofcups · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A millionaire sued another millionaire and millions changed hands. Everyone is scum in this situation. Plaintiff, defendant, and lawyers. Just an average day in America.

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    1. Re:Millionaires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A millionaire sued another millionaire and millions changed hands. Everyone is scum in this situation. Plaintiff, defendant, and lawyers. Just an average day in America.

      Hogan is a pretty small-time millionaire. His net worth is (well, until now) about $8M.

    2. Re: Millionaires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your logic 99% of the world pop have the right to call you scum, you rich prick

    3. Re:Millionaires by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Except now Nick Denton isn't a millionaire, so it's wins all the way around.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    4. Re:Millionaires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare rich people expect to get justice too! What scum they are for having more money than you do.

    5. Re:Millionaires by rhazz · · Score: 1

      Cue Hogan theme song... "I am a real American..."

  9. Food Network should show porn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How to pack fudge into a twinkie and make a creampie.

    1. Re:Food Network should show porn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to watch robots make pastries. Get in there and squirt that sugary filling. Oh yes!

    2. Re:Food Network should show porn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  10. Before anyone crows about this .. by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Who invented email? This settlement includes $750,000 to Shiva Ayyadurai and removal of the article that debunks his claim that he invented email.

    Does anyone think that part of the settlement is justified by anything except Thiel's money?

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Before anyone crows about this .. by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Tomlinson.. I was using rudimentary store/forward e-mail in 1976..
      Don't however confuse that to a lawyer making an obtuse argument of invention to get money. I would have argued that since e-mail is a concept and not a product that it's not subject to ownership but maybe copyright.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:Before anyone crows about this .. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Francis Ronalds, 1816. First practical telegraph.

      It may not be email in the way we use it today, but it is a text message transmitted electronically to destination address specified in the message header, and that sounds like email to me.

  11. Should not have been doing his friend's woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing worse than fucking your friend's woman. Having a cheating women is a horrible thing to have to live with. Bollea should pay his friend those 31 million dollars for the disgrace he had to endure. Gawker should have been commended for doing the right thing and exposing the cheating woman, and the so-called friend.

    1. Re:Should not have been doing his friend's woman by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      his friend knew about and was ok with it.....

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Should not have been doing his friend's woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only did the friend know about it, he arranged it, set the camera up, filmed it and was responsible for selling it to Gawker. Saying he knew about it and was ok with it seems to sell it a little short.

    3. Re: Should not have been doing his friend's woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about ruining the life of a stranger college student by publishing a cctv sex tape of them and refusing to take it down no matter how much they beg so you can make money from it?

    4. Re:Should not have been doing his friend's woman by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      true, but so many here hating on him seem to forget that he didnt screw his friend, his friend screwed him

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  12. You need to shut up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You're making me way horny. And I can't be distracted by arousal while I'm working. Mrs. Clinton isn't going to win this election all by herself.

    1. Re: You need to shut up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know. I'm trying to make a back end API for redline solutions but the Dev manager keeps sending these porn links

  13. rip shit website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only the worst websites could have articles saying people should be thrown in to prison for revenge porn next to a leaked sex tape on the front page.

  14. Good by kuzb · · Score: 1, Informative

    Seriously, fuck Nick Denton, and fuck Gawker. The only way it could have turned out better is if Hogan ended the court case with a leg drop. Peter Thiel is a hero for helping to take out this tabloid that insisted on masquerading as a legitimate news agency.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:Good by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, fuck Nick Denton

      There's not enough Astroglide in the world.

  15. your net worth can be $6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You won't have any fun playing with your dick after it gets severed in an accident and you spend your entire fortune on medical bills to have your dick reattached to your body but you still have no sensation in your reattached dick.

    1. Re:your net worth can be $6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You won't have any fun playing with your dick after it gets severed in an accident and you spend your entire fortune on medical bills to have your dick reattached to your body but you still have no sensation in your reattached dick.

      People incorrectly say this site is going downhill. Where else can I find such creative writing? This is my new background. Inspirational

  16. $750,000 to Shiva Ayyadurai by XXongo · · Score: 1

    Who invented email? This settlement includes $750,000 to Shiva Ayyadurai and removal of the article that debunks his claim that he invented email.

    That part is missing in the article linked, but is in other articles on the settlement:
    http://nordic.businessinsider.com/gawker-settles-with-hulk-hogan-2016-11/
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161102/10054035947/ridiculous-nick-denton-settles-remaining-charles-harder-lawsuits-agrees-to-delete-perfectly-true-stories.shtml
    https://nickdenton.org/a-hard-peace-e161e19bfa
    http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/11/gawker-reaches-settlement-with-hulk-hogan-004844

  17. Gawker headline:Degenerate nad-less man gets paid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only in america can you have a career based on taking illegal performance enhancing (and nad shrinking) drugs, play acting in spandex leotards, be a raging homophobic racist and get 31 million dollars for filming yourself committing adultery. oh yeah, and the guy who made all this possible is gay! lol

  18. Negotiations... by dasgoober · · Score: 1

    Hogan: How much ya got?
    Denton: 31 million dollars
    Hogan: I'll take it, brother!

  19. $2,428,404,901 Sucka! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MY dick is waaaaaay bigger. It's bigger than both of you and all your friends that you think are wealthy!

    I can buy and sell you all!!!!!!!!

    You're ALL my SLAVES! SLAVES you assholes!!!!!!!!!!

    And you know what slaves say. They say, "Yes, Massa"! So, all you slaves can bust your fucking lips open on my huge, gold-plated dick!!!!!! And, when I cum on your faces and ask if you want more, you'll ALL say ...

    "Yes, Massa! I wants mo"!

    And, it doesn't matter what color your skin is. I'm an equal opportunity slave owner.

    SLAVES!!!!!

  20. Hulk Slam! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks Hulk for bullyciding that faggot.

  21. justice? by srw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a sad state of affairs when you need a billionaire with a grudge backing you to get any justice.

    1. Re:justice? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      VOTE TRUMP!

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  22. It might not sound like a threat to speech, but is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the same reasons child porn laws are a threat to freedom of speech so are laws like this. Any censorship however justified it might seem is a threat to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Once you say some communications should be protected more than other communications there is no such thing as freedom of speech any more.

    Freedom of speech is not needed by those whose speech is popular. It is needed by those whose speech is not popular. Child porn led to censorship offline, but it has since led to online filters, mainly from the 1990s. Homophobic and racists groups who lost the war against homosexuality switched to attacking easier targets (paedophiles). Our perception of paedophiles is wrong and the racists and homophobic religious groups have taken advantage to push an agenda that in no way protects the children. It just adds to the prison count those whom there is zero evidence actually rape children. It's like saying every male is a rapist. It makes no sense. Some subset of paedophiles are rapists just as some subset of males are rapists. The same is true for murderers within the category of paedophiles and males. The image the media presents (and spurred on by racists and homophobic groups) though is that paedophiles are all rapists and murders.

    Most people don't realize that they are on a censored connection. It doesn't matter if you are in Canada, Europe, or China. A good chunk of the world is being censored by government and corporations alike. Post 2000 these filters are now used to censor copy'right' material. Even that is no longer good enough though. Now they don't just censor copy'right' material. They censor whole sites that talk about copy'right' infringing material, circumvention techniques, security issues, etc. Censorship lists also now include sites of a purely political nature. And we're not talking China either. We're talking countries like Canada, Australia, and countries in Europe that have these censorship lists. And don't even get me started about the middle east. The justifications against child porn are the same justifications they use to murder women, children, and homosexuals in the middle east.

  23. My problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is when a sex tape is worth more than ruining a man's life. And not Terry Bollea's, that vet friend of his son's that is vegatative thanks to that crash in the Supra. I would have a smidgen more respect for Mr. Bollea if some of this money was put forth into a fund for him to ensure his continued needs are met. Terry bought his son the car, bought his son the mods, probably paid off lots of reckless and illegal driving tickets (or got him out of them with a good lawyer.) Payback SHOULD be a bitch, but it should be a bitch for EVERYONE, not just some of the blokes because the other guy had more money.

  24. Re:My net worth is $41,550,000 by raind · · Score: 1

    With all that money you spend time reading /.
    Lol -- that's rich!

    --
    Get up!
  25. Some same old news wrapped up in this by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    I was listening to the radio yesterday and they were talking about Peter Thiel paying for some of Hogan's legal fees because "even as a single-digit millionaire, Hulk Hogan does not have adequate access to the legal system." Hulk Hogan may have been unsuccessful in his litigation because his pockets, his deep pockets, still weren't deep enough to get damages he deserved.

    And fuck Gawker. Good damn riddance. If you make enough enemies, they will pool their resources and bring you down. But the only people hurt by that will be the working class. The big-wigs there will just have their egos hurt.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  26. Remember by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    It wasn't about the sex tape where he fucked the wife of another man while the man filmed, it was about his racist comments which came out afterward.

    1. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Gawker didn't care about the commentary, they showed only the sex until after they were sued. Porn gets clicks. Clicks is money.

  27. 4 times Hogan's net worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just google "Hulk Hogan net worth" and you get 8 million USD. Old data I guess.He must be very very happy.

  28. Lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hell, I wanted to sue Gawker. No one should have to see Hulk Hogan naked. Ever.