Gawker found guilty in Hogan Case

[kgambit]

 

 

 

 

 

Let me explain why they different.

 

Let me explain why you are wrong.   The fact that you personally dislike Hogan's actions is immaterial.  No matter what you may personally feel about Hogan or his morality, he is entitled to have his privacy respected in the same manner you expect Lawrence's privacy to be respected.  The concept is simple Bruce, it's called equal protection under the law and it applies to everyone or it applies to no one.  As a champion of equality I would have expected you of all people to understand and embrace that concept.  That you don't is surprising.   So you're dead wrong on this. 

 

As for the folks employed at Gawker.com, no one (except possibly the editor) has lost a job yet.  If they do lose their jobs, you can blame Denton and his wanton disregard of privacy. 

 

Yes, you are technically correct as usual. I understand the concept of  "equal protection under the law " 

 

But that has never been my issue, my point is you cannot possibly compare the personal embarrassment that Jennifer must have felt compared to Hogan. So lets not debate the law and rather look at this from a social perspective?

 

I am still surprised you guys refuse to see a difference ?Its as clear as day to me? 

 

 

Oh I don't doubt you understand it.  I just don't think you believe in it.   If you did, this discussion would have ended some time ago.

 

Social perspective?  Sorry but no.  Let's stick with the law because the social perspective varies based on who you are talking to.  I get that you don't like Hogan or think he is amoral and that's fine,  It's immaterial.  And frankly I think you're being awful presumptuous trying to imagine what Hogan or Lawrence's feelings are.   In any case, it just doesn't matter a bit.  Gawker violated his privacy.  Now they are paying the price.   It's that simple. 

 

 

 

Yes I dont like Hogan, you right. He comes across as morally bankrupt ...I dont see Jennifer like that so that may make me bias but I still think Hogan is an attention seeker who after having sex with his wifes friend and the video being leaked now is  " offended  "

 

But to be honest I am sure why I seem to be defending Gawker because they also lack morals and have embarrassed people purely  for readership points...so maybe I should retract my original view because if this is about morals then Gawker is also lacking?

 

 

Your personal dislike of Hogan Is coloring your judgment and the obvious bias  reinforces what I said earlier:  you don't truly believe in the concept of equal protection under the law.   You seem to think that Hogan's actions provide sufficient reason to strip him of that right.  That isn't the way it works Bruce and it still amazes me how you can so cavalierly disregard basic human rights when it suits you.   

 

Gawker's morality (or lack thereof) does not matter either.  I've noticed that you are willing to give some people a pass for illegal activity based solely on their intentions.     Gawker violated Hogan's right to privacy and the law.  In this case, it's really that cut and dry.   

 

As for Cosby, if the tape in question is a tape of him having consensual sex with another woman and recorded secretly without his consent then again it's a violation of his privacy.   I'm not entirely sure but if a video of him in the act of raping a woman is recorded in a location where Cosby would otherwise expect a certain degree of privacy, then that recording is illegal.  I'll defer to the lawyers on the admissibility of such videos.  But the following link provides some general guidelines. 

 

http://www.newmediarights.org/page/field_guide_audio_and_video_recordings#Offensive

[Meshugger]

How can anyone dislike Hogan? He's a manly-man-man

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4pmMmppmlo

 

Just hanging around him makes you a sexual tyrannosaurus.

[Amentep]

 

Yet you support what Gawker did. Cause Hogan is a man. LOL

I assumed you would say I was contradicting myself but I am not as I always look at the context and the nuances with this type of event

 

And yes there is a difference between Hogan and his lifestyle choices and someone like Jennifer Lawrence 

 

 

Yes there is a difference. Both had images illegally obtained and distributed.  The two differences I can think of was that Lawrence made her own pictures (Hogan didn't) and that Lawrence got many sites to take her pictures down, whereas Gawker did nothing of the kind with Hogan - even after told to do so legally.

 

All of this mental backfliping is just smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that you think Lawrence was "good" and therefore it is horrible something bad happened whereas Hogan was "bad" and got what he deserved.  Just accept that you believe its okay to commit crimes against people you don't like and be done with it.

[Volourn]

if hogan was raped and murdered bruce would cheer bc hogan does things he dissaproves ... that is the kind of believe system that led to that gay bar mass shooting.

[BruceVC]

if hogan was raped and murdered bruce would cheer bc hogan does things he dissaproves ... that is the kind of believe system that led to that gay bar mass shooting.

Volo thats an unfair and unreasonable characterization of my motives 

 

Why would you think I dislike my own gender? I just dont believe men are victims in society 

[Amentep]

 

if hogan was raped and murdered bruce would cheer bc hogan does things he dissaproves ... that is the kind of believe system that led to that gay bar mass shooting.

Volo thats an unfair and unreasonable characterization of my motives 

 

Why would you think I dislike my own gender? I just dont believe men are victims in society 

 

So when you're robbed at gun point, the law shouldn't prosecute because as a man you can't be a victim?

Edited June 13, 2016 by Amentep

[IndiraLightfoot]

The law must apply the same for everybody - at least, that should be the ideal, no? In practice, I know, this isn't the case. For instance, the rich and the famous tend to get quite some slack.

 

Moreover, everybody may be a victim regardless of sociocultural categorizations. In fact, I'd like to emphasize that we're all victims under those very classifications per se. 

[Bartimaeus]

Am I having deja vu? Didn't we already have this discussion with (mostly) the same people on the same issue over these same exact points?

Edited June 13, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[IndiraLightfoot]

[Amentep]

Am I having deja vu? Didn't we already have this discussion with (mostly) the same people on the same issue over these same exact points?

 

Its déjà vu all over again.

 

Then again, and the be fair, time has improved the argument.

[Bartimaeus]

You know, I don't think it really has. Previously, Bruce accepted the points you just went over (again) and admitted that his line of thinking wasn't that great. Now, he's back to his original position and refusing those same points that originally made him change his mind. I really don't think this is better.

[BruceVC]

 

 

if hogan was raped and murdered bruce would cheer bc hogan does things he dissaproves ... that is the kind of believe system that led to that gay bar mass shooting.

Volo thats an unfair and unreasonable characterization of my motives 

 

Why would you think I dislike my own gender? I just dont believe men are victims in society 

 

So when you're robbed at gun point, the law shouldn't prosecute because as a man you can't be a victim?

 

You cheeky, I have a good mind to put you over my knee and give you a good spanking  

[BruceVC]

You know, I don't think it really has. Previously, Bruce accepted the points you just went over (again) and admitted that his line of thinking wasn't that great. Now, he's back to his original position and refusing those same points that originally made him change his mind. I really don't think this is better.

 Barti you funny

 

Barti when new information comes our way we tend to rethink ideas or maybe change our views

[Longknife]

You know, I don't think it really has. Previously, Bruce accepted the points you just went over (again) and admitted that his line of thinking wasn't that great. Now, he's back to his original position and refusing those same points that originally made him change his mind. I really don't think this is better.

 

It's as if Bruce just pretends to listen to people and provides overly polite responses by default that ultimately amount to little more than hollow, empty claims and statements or something.

[Amentep]

You know, I don't think it really has. Previously, Bruce accepted the points you just went over (again) and admitted that his line of thinking wasn't that great. Now, he's back to his original position and refusing those same points that originally made him change his mind. I really don't think this is better.

 

Pretty much my post is what happens when you don't proof read what you wrote.

 

There was a missing "not" in one of the sentences.  I'll leave it as an exercise for the viewers at home to work out where it should have gone.

[Longknife]

Its déjà vu all over again.

 

Then again, and the be fair, time has improved the argument. NOT!!!

 

Did I win Amentep? Are you a sassy high school girl

Edited June 13, 2016 by Longknife

[Bartimaeus]

 

 

You know, I don't think it really has. Previously, Bruce accepted the points you just went over (again) and admitted that his line of thinking wasn't that great. Now, he's back to his original position and refusing those same points that originally made him change his mind. I really don't think this is better.

 

Pretty much my post is what happens when you don't proof read what you wrote.

 

There was a missing "not" in one of the sentences.  I'll leave it as an exercise for the viewers at home to work out where it should have gone.

 

 

Am I having deja vu? Didn't we already have this discussion with (mostly) the same people on the same issue over these same exact points?

Its déjà vu all over again.

 

Then again, and the be not fair, time has improved the argument.

 

fixd

[Calax]

 

 

 

But that has never been my issue, my point is you cannot possibly compare the personal embarrassment that Jennifer must have felt compared to Hogan. 

 

 

Sexism is a two-way street, Bruce. The notion that men can't feel embarrassment at having their sex tapes leaked is no less stupid and harmful than the overall societal view that ties women's worth to their perceived purity.

 

Yes my friend, of course I know sexism is two way. Thats a physiological fact but the whole Hogan issue for me is about the moral and social decision Hogan made when he had sex with his wifes friend .....I am not surprised he felt embarrassed 

 

But I am not really convincing anyone about my point, let me try this another way. Bill Cosby is a sexual predator, how would you feel if he  was also filmed and he decided to sue a company like Gawker ?

 

So in other words does the character and actual deeds of a person matter when they get offended and decide to take legal punitive steps? For me it does because I would ask "you who raped over 50 women now are offended by a leaked video " 

 

So... basically you're saying that hogan was "asking for it"? That the fact that he doesn't fit into your personal moral code means that it's perfectly fine for him to have suffered because of his choices?

 

Because the way you make it sound, Paris Hilton wouldn't have had any leg to stand on to try to recoup any losses from HER sex tape because of her public persona at the time (She was awarded 400k).

 

If a Cosby sex tape did leak, there'd be some people showing "Karmic Judgment!" in the same way others did when OJ got 33 years in prison for armed robbery. But, any lawyer would tell you "hey, he's totally within his right to sue for damages". Although how much he'd get would be far less because he basically has no reputation at this point. 

[Calax]

http://www.kayfabenews.com/gawker-returns-mask-mr-gawkmerica/

[Longknife]

http://www.kayfabenews.com/gawker-returns-mask-mr-gawkmerica/

 

 

How long must one dunk their own head in a toilet and keep it there to be this unaware of how the world works...?

[Calax]

 

http://www.kayfabenews.com/gawker-returns-mask-mr-gawkmerica/

 

 

How long must one dunk their own head in a toilet and keep it there to be this unaware of how the world works...?

 

... That's from a website that claims that Ted Dibiase bailed out Greece after making the President/PM dribble a basketball 50 times.

 

http://www.kayfabenews.com/dibiase-bails-greece/

[Longknife]

 

 

http://www.kayfabenews.com/gawker-returns-mask-mr-gawkmerica/

 

 

How long must one dunk their own head in a toilet and keep it there to be this unaware of how the world works...?

 

... That's from a website that claims that Ted Dibiase bailed out Greece after making the President/PM dribble a basketball 50 times.

 

http://www.kayfabenews.com/dibiase-bails-greece/

 

 

 

Satire or just a bad news source? If the latter, why'd you link it in the first place lolol

 

And if satire, I like it. Hell, I was ready to believe it, given their past "protests" they've done in the face of the lawsuit.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Longknife

[Zoraptor]

In 2004 (?) Hulk Hogan got fired by Vince McMahon and a bloke called Mr America turned up next week who was masked, had an America asterisks yeah shtick and skin like an overcooked low quality sausage. Many suspected he was actually Hulk Hogan- but he wasn't as he passed a lie detector test! Indeed, many years later he was shown to be some bloke called 'Terry Bollea' (ridiculous, made up sounding name that it is) instead of Hulk Hogan.

 

 

Kayfabe = basically, all the 'storyline' stuff of wrestling, like Hulk Hogan supposedly having an enormous python or Million Dollar Man Ted DiBiase actually being a millionaire or The Big Boss man actually dragging The Big Show's dead dad's coffin around behind a hearse or John Cena being invisible etc. Kayfabe News is wrestling headlines/ news you'd get if wrestling were 'real'.

 

Edited June 18, 2016 by Zoraptor

[BruceVC]

 

http://www.kayfabenews.com/gawker-returns-mask-mr-gawkmerica/

 

 

How long must one dunk their own head in a toilet and keep it there to be this unaware of how the world works...?

 

Dont be hard on yourself LK....most people never take introspective looks at themselves and identify ways they can improve 

[Calax]

 

 

 

http://www.kayfabenews.com/gawker-returns-mask-mr-gawkmerica/

 

 

How long must one dunk their own head in a toilet and keep it there to be this unaware of how the world works...?

 

... That's from a website that claims that Ted Dibiase bailed out Greece after making the President/PM dribble a basketball 50 times.

 

http://www.kayfabenews.com/dibiase-bails-greece/

 

 

 

Satire or just a bad news source? If the latter, why'd you link it in the first place lolol

 

And if satire, I like it. Hell, I was ready to believe it, given their past "protests" they've done in the face of the lawsuit.

 

Yes, Tis satire...