Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Laugh! Laugh! Laugh! Laugh! Jury awards Hulk Hogan $115 million in sex, celebrity and privacy case against homosexual lefty spite site Gawker.
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Up Yours Gawker
Mar 28, 2016, 10:38:49 PM3/28/16
to
For most of his adult life, the camera has been Hulk Hogan’s
best friend, capturing him body slamming opponents to the mat in
the wrestling ring, spinning, glaring and taunting all who might
try to take him on.
But the image of the wrestling star was far less flattering when
a grainy sex tape of Hogan in bed with a friend’s wife surfaced
on Gawker, the popular online media web site.
When attorneys for Hogan and Gawker clashed over publication of
the video, it was perhaps inevitable that it would all be
dragged into a courtroom and explode into a nearly over-the-top
mash-up of celebrity, sex and constitutionality.
A Florida jury on Friday awarded Hogan $115 million in damages
in a case that claimed he was hurt and humiliated when Gawker
showed the tawdry video to the world.
“What's disturbing about Gawker isn't what they do in a vacuum,”
Turkel said at the close of the two-week civil trial. “It's how
proud they are of it.”
Hogan, whose given name is Terry Bollea, claimed it was an
invasion of privacy and sought $100 million in damages to help
right those alleged wrongs.
The jury ended up giving him even more, awarding $60 million in
damages for emotional distress and $55 million in punitive
damages.
The named defendants included Albert J. Daulerio, editor in
chief of Gawker.com at the time the sex video was published, and
Nick Denton, Gawker Media’s founder and chief executive.
Gawker’s response might best be summed up this way – give us a
break.
Attorneys for the web site challenged jurors to watch the 1
minute, 41 second video, saying it barely qualified as a sex
tape, and pointed out that gossip web sites TMZ and TheDirty.Com
published stills from the video months before Gawker finally
posted the footage.
Despite his claims that he suffered greatly from the publication
of the video, Hogan openly discussed the tape in radio
interviews, including a lengthy segment on the Howard Stern
Show, Gawker’s attorneys said. The attorneys also wondered why
Hogan had called into TMZ after the video went live.
“Who among us thinks it’s a good idea to send a serious message
through TMZ?” said Michael Sullivan, an attorney for Gawker.
“TMZ is the place a celebrity goes to get even more attention
for a sex tape.”
Sullivan said while the video received 2.5 million views, there
was little financial benefit for Gawker.
“There was no sustained Hulk effect on the site’s traffic,”
Sullivan said.
During the trial, Hogan testified that the video was secretly
recorded in 2007, at a time he was “depressed” and had agreed at
a friend’s urging to have sex with that man’s wife.
The friend, Tampa Bay shock job Bubba “the Love Sponge” Clem,
coaxed Hogan into sleeping with his wife, the wrestler’s
attorneys said.
Clem was never called to the witness stand, likely because he’d
indicated he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to talk.
Hogan sued Clem after the tape was released and the case was
settled out of court for an estimated $5,000.
Why the video was shot and how it was leaked to the media
remained unanswered questions, along with a cache of documents
that remained sealed during the trial, only heightening
speculation about what salacious details they might hold. When
they were unsealed Friday, there were no bombshells.
The central theme of the wrestler’s case was the separation he
saw between the attention-seeking Hulk Hogan character and Terry
Bollea, the regular guy who coveted his private time. When the
sex tape was shot, he was in full Terry Bollea mode.
“This case defines reckless disregard and Gawker embodies it
here in this case,” Hogan’s attorney, Kenneth Turkel, told
jurors.
At one point, Daulerio was questioned about a previous video
deposition in which he sarcastically said sex tapes featuring
children under the age of 4 were about the only thing off limits
to post on Gawker.com, when trying to explain the context of
material that was newsworthy.
“Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would
not be newsworthy?” Hogan attorney Douglas E. Mirell asked.
“If they were a child,” Daulerio replied.
“Under what age?” the lawyer pressed.
“Four.”
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hogan-gawker-sex-tape-
20160318-story.html
best friend, capturing him body slamming opponents to the mat in
the wrestling ring, spinning, glaring and taunting all who might
try to take him on.
But the image of the wrestling star was far less flattering when
a grainy sex tape of Hogan in bed with a friend’s wife surfaced
on Gawker, the popular online media web site.
When attorneys for Hogan and Gawker clashed over publication of
the video, it was perhaps inevitable that it would all be
dragged into a courtroom and explode into a nearly over-the-top
mash-up of celebrity, sex and constitutionality.
A Florida jury on Friday awarded Hogan $115 million in damages
in a case that claimed he was hurt and humiliated when Gawker
showed the tawdry video to the world.
“What's disturbing about Gawker isn't what they do in a vacuum,”
Turkel said at the close of the two-week civil trial. “It's how
proud they are of it.”
Hogan, whose given name is Terry Bollea, claimed it was an
invasion of privacy and sought $100 million in damages to help
right those alleged wrongs.
The jury ended up giving him even more, awarding $60 million in
damages for emotional distress and $55 million in punitive
damages.
The named defendants included Albert J. Daulerio, editor in
chief of Gawker.com at the time the sex video was published, and
Nick Denton, Gawker Media’s founder and chief executive.
Gawker’s response might best be summed up this way – give us a
break.
Attorneys for the web site challenged jurors to watch the 1
minute, 41 second video, saying it barely qualified as a sex
tape, and pointed out that gossip web sites TMZ and TheDirty.Com
published stills from the video months before Gawker finally
posted the footage.
Despite his claims that he suffered greatly from the publication
of the video, Hogan openly discussed the tape in radio
interviews, including a lengthy segment on the Howard Stern
Show, Gawker’s attorneys said. The attorneys also wondered why
Hogan had called into TMZ after the video went live.
“Who among us thinks it’s a good idea to send a serious message
through TMZ?” said Michael Sullivan, an attorney for Gawker.
“TMZ is the place a celebrity goes to get even more attention
for a sex tape.”
Sullivan said while the video received 2.5 million views, there
was little financial benefit for Gawker.
“There was no sustained Hulk effect on the site’s traffic,”
Sullivan said.
During the trial, Hogan testified that the video was secretly
recorded in 2007, at a time he was “depressed” and had agreed at
a friend’s urging to have sex with that man’s wife.
The friend, Tampa Bay shock job Bubba “the Love Sponge” Clem,
coaxed Hogan into sleeping with his wife, the wrestler’s
attorneys said.
Clem was never called to the witness stand, likely because he’d
indicated he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to talk.
Hogan sued Clem after the tape was released and the case was
settled out of court for an estimated $5,000.
Why the video was shot and how it was leaked to the media
remained unanswered questions, along with a cache of documents
that remained sealed during the trial, only heightening
speculation about what salacious details they might hold. When
they were unsealed Friday, there were no bombshells.
The central theme of the wrestler’s case was the separation he
saw between the attention-seeking Hulk Hogan character and Terry
Bollea, the regular guy who coveted his private time. When the
sex tape was shot, he was in full Terry Bollea mode.
“This case defines reckless disregard and Gawker embodies it
here in this case,” Hogan’s attorney, Kenneth Turkel, told
jurors.
At one point, Daulerio was questioned about a previous video
deposition in which he sarcastically said sex tapes featuring
children under the age of 4 were about the only thing off limits
to post on Gawker.com, when trying to explain the context of
material that was newsworthy.
“Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would
not be newsworthy?” Hogan attorney Douglas E. Mirell asked.
“If they were a child,” Daulerio replied.
“Under what age?” the lawyer pressed.
“Four.”
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hogan-gawker-sex-tape-
20160318-story.html
0 new messages