At the crux of the trial was the disputed news value of the tape: Gawker Media alleged its publication of the tape was protected by the First Amendment given its perceived newsworthiness Hogan’s legal team argued that the tape unjustly pried into his personal life. The case stemmed from the media company’s decision to publish an edited sex tape showing the former wrestler having sex with Heather Clem, the ex-wife of shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge Clem. That’s why we feel very positive about the appeal that we have already begun preparing, as we expect to win this case ultimately.
HOGAN GAWKER TRIAL FULL
I want to thank our lawyers for their outstanding work and am confident that we would have prevailed at trial if we had been allowed to present the full case to the jury. Given key evidence and the most important witness were both improperly withheld from this jury, we all knew the appeals court will need to resolve the case. Nick Denton, the founder of Gawker Media, said in a statement that the company plans to appeal the decision. The trial may offer some insight into whether, as a society, Americans actually do believe in setting limits on the Internet-and where the First Amendment allows those limits to be drawn.After a years-long legal fight, a Florida jury has ruled in favor of Hulk Hogan in his invasion-of-privacy lawsuit against Gawker Media, awarding the ex-professional wrestler $115 million.
HOGAN GAWKER TRIAL FREE
Amy Gajda, a law professor at Tulane Law School and the author of The First Amendment Bubble: How Privacy and Paparazzi Threaten a Free Press, says that nudity and sexual activity, like health information and social security numbers, have long been considered private information. Legal experts say it could put the Internet's “anything goes” sensibility to the test. However, if the case is appealed and a decision is handed down by Florida appellate judges, then courts in other states could look to it for guidance in future cases.īut even though the case won't set federal precedent (unless it moves to the Supreme Court), it could still have an impact that extends beyond the individuals involved, whichever way it's decided.
HOGAN GAWKER TRIAL PLUS
Jury trials are often too specific, plus the trial is being adjudicated in Florida state court, which means that even if it were to be appealed, the decision would only have a precedential impact on the state itself. Gawker Pulls Post as New Media Enters Midlife Crisis Mode Arrowįrom a legal standpoint, the Hogan trial likely won’t set major precedents for sex tapes or free speech on the Internet. Hogan's hope is that a jury weighs Gawker's judgment and finds it wanting. We’re going to trust your judgment,’" Calvert says.
"Traditionally courts have deferred to journalists and have said, ‘We’re not going to go back and edit your stuff. Some legal analysts tell WIRED that it's not completely clear if Gawker's video clip of Hogan meets all of these criteria-whereas say publishing a photo of Anthony Weiner's penis (link NSFW) after he denied sexting is more obviously newsworthy, since he was a politician accountable to the public. Under Florida law, private information can only be published if it is a matter of “legitimate public concern.” Calvert says that in the past, newsworthiness typically has depended upon factors like the extent to which the person voluntarily became famous the depth of intrusion into the person's private life and the social value of the facts. “The question of ‘What is newsworthiness?’ is going to determine the case,” says Clay Calvert, a professor of mass communications at the University of Florida and director of the Marion B. (Berlin represented WIRED and its parent company Condé Nast in a 2010 lawsuit.) "You join this ongoing discussion, do it in a way that adds commentary to it, and the plaintiff sues you for $100 million because he doesn’t like what you said," says Seth Berlin, the attorney representing Gawker in the trial. Because his sex life had already become a part of his public persona and controversy surrounding the sex tape was bubbling, Gawker argues, it was fair to post the video ("a matter of public concern," as Gawker put it in court documents), especially because it showed that he did, in fact, sleep with Clem.
0 kommentar(er)
