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."

Comments

Poor Nick Denton

[HBI]

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.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[aevan]

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.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[ganjadude]

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

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[interkin3tic]

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.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

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.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[vadim_t]

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.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[Cruciform]

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".

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[tlhIngan]

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.

Cry me a river, Nick.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

How can the media go on?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Millionaires

[Princeofcups]

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.

Before anyone crows about this ..

[whoever57]

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?

Re:quick

[ganjadude]

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

Re:The party I have the least respect for

[mattyj]

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.

justice?

[srw]

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

Re: quick

[ArmoredDragon]

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