Increasingly, states are criminalizing the troubling trend of “revenge porn.” Nevada’s new law makes such actions a class “C” felony. Hogan sued the person he accused of recording the act, a case which reportedly settled for a public apology and $5,000. Note also that the question here isn’t whether somebody who is recorded without their consent while having sex should be able to successfully sue. In addition to his numerous media appearances talking about the video, an indication that Hogan’s case is more about image control and less about privacy and emotional distress is that he initially sued Gawker for violating his copyright in the video, a claim which he later abandoned. The case also has important implications for the balance the First Amendment strikes between freedom of speech and public figures’ control over what is said about them - particularly when they don’t like it. We can reject Gawker’s justification for posting this particular video from an ethical standpoint (I do) without accepting a legal rule that renders all similarly situated publishers liable and reluctant to provide proof. Consider a video involving a politician who denies allegations of morally repugnant or illegal sexual activity. But that rule would also apply to videos that might carry greater consequence as news audiences increasingly call for video evidence to substantiate contested public claims. A “bright-line rule” against the publication of any sex video without the consent of those depicted, regardless of the participants’ public status or the public’s interest in the video makes common sense. In my First Amendment class we reason by analogy. Houston argues that the jury’s verdict “carves out a very clear rule … you do not publish a sex video that was taken without the knowledge and or consent of the participants and disseminate it without their approval.” He asks, “How does a bright-line rule like that impact or affect the First Amendment?” Gawker’s counsel argued that the footage is newsworthy and protected by the First Amendment, and that Hogan should not have had an expectation of privacy.The case pivoted on whether the video should be considered newsworthy. Hogan also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order to have the video removed. Hulk Hogan sued Gawker for $100 million for invasion of privacy for publicly releasing a sex tape that involved Hogan and his friend’s wife. Listen to David Folkenflik, media correspondent for NPR, speak with the BBC about how the longstanding friction between Thiel and Gawker motivated him to fund Hogan in his suit against the site. According to Forbes, Thiel had said numerous times that the case was not about the extent of the First Amendment, but rather about an individual’s right to privacy. Thiel’s lawyers said that his involvement in lawsuits against Gawker were brought, in part, because of an economic interest, despite the fact that Thiel had stated previously that the it was not a business venture.
#HULK HOGAN GAWKER CASE SERIES#
Thiel was the subject of a series of Gawker articles that outed him as gay, and that the disclosure was “very painful.” Peter Thiel, a tech billionaire, secretly backed Hogan giving him $10 million for the lawsuit. Why is Silicon Valley Billionaire Peter Thiel involved? Hogan was awarded $140 million in total damages. The jury found that Gawker violated Hogan’s privacy, and that he suffered emotional distress.
#HULK HOGAN GAWKER CASE TRIAL#
Gawker: A Guide to the Trial for the Perplexed Berlin of Levine Sullivan, Koch and Schulz This is a crucial issue not only for Gawker, but for all media organizations.” –Gawker chief lawyer Seth D. “Gawker is defending its First Amendment right to join an ongoing conversation about a celebrity when others are talking about it and the celebrity is talking about it. The trial highlighted the tension between the right to privacy and the freedom of the press, and tested the limits of online press freedom. Hogan was the first witness to testify in his lawsuit against Gawker, telling the jury that he was “completely humiliated” by the the video going public, and that he was unaware that the encounter was being filmed. Gawker was forced to file for bankruptcy as a result of the jury ruling. 2016: Gawker & Hogan Reach SettlementĪfter four years of litigation, Gawker and Hogan reached a settlement, in which Hogan was to receive $31 million in cash and a share of the proceeds of Gawker’s sale.
0 kommentar(er)
