Gawker found guilty in Hogan Case

[Volourn]

LOL Gawker has nothing to do with free speech. If you think this is a free speech issue u are delusional. I'm guessing Bruce supported whoever released all those Female celeb pics. This is an invasion of privacy issue. Also whining about the employees is cowardly and shameful.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Volourn

[Malcador]

Interesting ploy but won't they get in trouble for trying to use bankruptcy to avoid paying a punishment?

[kgambit]

Interesting ploy but won't they get in trouble for trying to use bankruptcy to avoid paying a punishment?

 

Assuming the judgment against GMG holds on appeal, I think it's simply just one more debt to add to the list.   Chapter 11 doesn't require a liquidation of assets - it's basically just a reorganization.   Any proceeds from the sale of GMG will be assigned on a prorated basis to creditors with fund allocated for the Hogan settlement going into escrow pending final appeals on the award.

 

I've heard three widely varying reports on GMG's total debt.  (1)  (unsubstantiated) reports up to $500 million in debt and $100 million in assets;  (2) reports 140+ million in debt (almost all of it from the Hogan judgment and (3) this which details GMG's assets and liabilities:   http://www.politico.com/media/f/?id=00000155-3c0e-d8cf-a15f-3dce2f470002#page=2  

 

The latter appears to not include the Hogan judgment which GMG disputes.   Also not clear whether the May 2016 balance sheet includes a recent loan intended to fund operations during the chapter 11 filing. 

[BruceVC]

LOL Gawker has nothing to do with free speech. If you think this is a free speech issue u are delusional. I'm guessing Bruce supported whoever released all those Female celeb pics. This is an invasion of privacy issue. Also whining about the employees is cowardly and shameful.

Of course I didn't support those female celeb photos...that was an invasion of the various celebrities personal world 

[Volourn]

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

[BruceVC]

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 

[Volourn]

LOL

[Calax]

 

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 

 

No, there isn't. The only real difference is that one has a "hoohah" and one has a "wee wee". Both had photos of them being hacked and put on display on the internet. And when Jennifer asked to have hers taken down Gawker did, because she was a she. When Hulk Hogan asked to have his removed, they doubled down and threw up the middle fingers to him.

 

And before you say "But people are losing their jobs!" Realize, this entire thing has caused Hulk himself to be declared "Un-person" by the largest wrestling promotion in the world (his former employer WWE). The only other time that I can remember this happening with a wrestler was the murder suicide of Chris Benoit. (WWE keeps most of hits big talent of the old days on "Legend Contracts" that pay a living salary for sporadic appearances)

[aluminiumtrioxid]

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

So if Jennifer Lawrence was married and having sex with someone outside that marriage - even if all parties involved, even her spouse, had consented to it -, she'd deserve having the Internet plastered with videos of that?

[Longknife]

 

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

So if Jennifer Lawrence was married and having sex with someone outside that marriage - even if all parties involved, even her spouse, had consented to it -, she'd deserve having the Internet plastered with videos of that?

 

 

C'mon aluminium, you're smarter than this.

 

Cheating + womyn + attractive = How dare Gawker do that!?!

[Malcador]

 

 

 

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

So if Jennifer Lawrence was married and having sex with someone outside that marriage - even if all parties involved, even her spouse, had consented to it -, she'd deserve having the Internet plastered with videos of that?

C'mon aluminium, you're smarter than this.

 

Cheating + womyn + attractive = How dare Gawker do that!?!

If you're going to dogpile, try harder than that.

[BruceVC]

 

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

So if Jennifer Lawrence was married and having sex with someone outside that marriage - even if all parties involved, even her spouse, had consented to it -, she'd deserve having the Internet plastered with videos of that?

 

 

 

 

 

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 

 

No, there isn't. The only real difference is that one has a "hoohah" and one has a "wee wee". Both had photos of them being hacked and put on display on the internet. And when Jennifer asked to have hers taken down Gawker did, because she was a she. When Hulk Hogan asked to have his removed, they doubled down and threw up the middle fingers to him.

 

And before you say "But people are losing their jobs!" Realize, this entire thing has caused Hulk himself to be declared "Un-person" by the largest wrestling promotion in the world (his former employer WWE). The only other time that I can remember this happening with a wrestler was the murder suicide of Chris Benoit. (WWE keeps most of hits big talent of the old days on "Legend Contracts" that pay a living salary for sporadic appearances)

Guys it always surprises me when people reject my suggestion that Hogan and Jennifer aren't the same....alum I am particularly surprised you disagree as you are normally aligned to these types of nuances 

 

Let me explain why they different. And to understand this point you have to forget any previous view you have that is similar to " of course they the same, its about Gawker publishing information of a tabloid nature " ...no they not as what matters is the person and there character...these points will obviously have different responses based on the person 

For example lets say Charlie Sheen was filmed during one of his sexual escapades....would the emphasis to  " not embarrass him and get the video taken down " be the same as a video of Jennifer Lawrence having sex with her boyfriend? 

[Lexx]

What if the Lawrence video is embarrassing for her too. Who are you to judge what is embarrassing for people and what is not?

[BruceVC]

What if the Lawrence video is embarrassing for her too. Who are you to judge what is embarrassing for people and what is not?

Not sure we are on the same page, I acknowledge the video was embarrassing for Jennifer...thats why she wanted to take it down 

 

Oh no need to worry about me passing unreasonable judgement, a video of you having sex with your partner being posted online would be basically embarrassing for anyone?

 

I would think this would be obvious?

[Fighter]

I have no sympathy for Gawker but have always found the practice of evaluating 'moral damage' as worth cosmic amounts of money to be excessive to say the least.

[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. 

Edited June 13, 2016 by kgambit

[Zoraptor]

 

And before you say "But people are losing their jobs!" Realize, this entire thing has caused Hulk himself to be declared "Un-person" by the largest wrestling promotion in the world (his former employer WWE). The only other time that I can remember this happening with a wrestler was the murder suicide of Chris Benoit. (WWE keeps most of hits big talent of the old days on "Legend Contracts" that pay a living salary for sporadic appearances)

 

 

The saga overall certainly did, though for the sake of anyone not familiar with the it the specific thing that got him blanked from WWE was the release of the unredacted tape with his, uh, liberal use of n-bombs rather than the initial tape of him boffing his friend's wife. The unredacted tape release was never proven to be by Gawker- lucky for them, since it was under a non release order- though it seems extremely likely that it was them and was equally likely why they didn't take the initial video down, they expected him to fold under threat of the full tape's release.

 

Hulk hasn't quite had the full Benoit treatment from WWE. Benoit will never be rehabilitated and has had pretty much the full Stalin unperson treatment, Hulk occasionally shows up in clip compilations or is mentioned in championship lists and the like and could yet return after sufficient time and a profuse apology. Jimmy Snuka is in much the same boat and even more recently than Hulk due to a historic suspicious death accusation resurfacing.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Zoraptor

[BruceVC]

 

 

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? 

[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. 

[Longknife]

 

 

 

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

So if Jennifer Lawrence was married and having sex with someone outside that marriage - even if all parties involved, even her spouse, had consented to it -, she'd deserve having the Internet plastered with videos of that?

C'mon aluminium, you're smarter than this.

 

Cheating + womyn + attractive = How dare Gawker do that!?!

If you're going to dogpile, try harder than that.

 

 

 

BUT MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

Well you say I'm being presumptuous but I say my opinion is based on a typical  human response to the situation 

 

So for example lets say we take 8 people on this forum and they go away together to stay in a log cabin in ....Norway. If you said to me " Bruce how many of these 8 people will be keen to swim at 4 am in the freezing lake next to the cabin " even without asking them I will say " none, who wants to swim  in a freezing lake " ? Its logic ...dont think I'm a genius 

 

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?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

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.

[BruceVC]

 

 

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 " 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

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 "

I'm understandably leery of any line of argument that requires the listener to equate extramarital sex with serial rape.

[Longknife]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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 ?

 

 

The fact that you are even asking this question stands as proof that all of the arguments people have presented to you are completely falling on deaf ears and you haven't made any attempt to understand them.

 

If Bill Cosby rapes Woman A and then has a consentual sex tape made with Woman B, no, his crimes involving Woman A do not absolve him of his right to privacy with Woman B. It's called objective thinking, and it's a cornerstone of any legal system. It's important to be able to analyze a situation and pinpoint the facts as they stand within individual cases. A completely seperate case should have little to no impact on another ("little to no" being that for example if you're charged with theft and then later steal again, this will play into the judge's ruling). By your logic, if I owe such an outstanding sum of money to the local electronics store that a collection agency sent on their behalf can legally obtain the right to come search my belongings for any valuables that could pay my debt, then what difference does it make if my landlord waltzes into my apartment completely unannounced one day because my rent was a day late. No, there's a big difference there, and breaking the law in one case does not give others the right to violate your rights.