![]() ![]() Hogan’s legal team hailed the outcome: “We’re exceptionally happy with the verdict. That’s why we feel very positive about the appeal that we have already begun preparing, as we expect to win this case ultimately.” GAWKER LOSES MILLIONS 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,” he said. The focus of the coming proceedings likely will be whether the First Amendment should have precluded claims and whether Gawker got a fair trial.ĭenton delivered a statement in response to the verdict. Gawker already has indicated it will appeal. The court will reconvene next week when the judge could decide to award punitive damages to Hogan.Ī stunned-looking Nick Denton watched from the gallery and took a deep breath. ![]() Hogan sobbed, and after the outcome became clear, appeared relieved more than happy. In reaching its verdict, the jury tipped that scale toward privacy. You’re balancing the right to make the speech versus privacy rights.” … You’re not going to condemn someone’s right to engage in speech. “This is not about political speech,” rebutted Turkel to the jury. “We need a First Amendment to protect what’s controversial.” “We don’t need the First Amendment to protect what’s popular,” responded Gawker attorney Michael Sullivan in his own closing. “Do you think the media can do whatever they want?” asked Hogan’s attorney Ken Turkel in closing arguments. Youre not going to win the lottery especially not the Mega Millions but if you do you probably shouldnt leave the winning ticket lying around for two weeks as you obliviously continue on. Hogan also won on his right of publicity claim. Like many states, Florida has enacted statutes that guard against intrusions on seclusion and privacy of communications. GAWKER LOSES MILLIONS FREEUltimately, the case became a battle, at least indirectly, between the First Amendment, guaranteeing free speech and a free press, and the Fourteenth Amendment, where courts have determined that a right to privacy derives under equal protection of life, liberty and property. Hulk Hogan Grilled About Sex-Filled TMZ, Howard Stern Interviews at Gawker Trial No part of the actual sex tape itself - including the excerpts published by Gawker - was shown to the jurors. Nor could they discuss many of the racist comments that Hogan had made during his sexual encounter with Cole to set up a possible argument that Hogan had an ulterior motive for the lawsuit.Ī Florida appeals court ordered the unsealing of court records - including text messages between Hogan and Bubba, Bubba’s deposition testimony, what the FBI was told during its investigation, and a $5,000 settlement agreement between Hogan and Bubba - but none of that made it into the trial thanks to Florida Circuit Judge Pamela Campbell’s pretrial rulings that strongly favored Hogan. The mysterious background of the sex tape was explored by Gawker: Who knew a taping was happening? Was it a publicity stunt? But Gawker couldn’t get Clem, whom they desperately wanted, on the witness stand to address conflicting accounts of who knew about the taping. One of Hogan’s experts testified the benefit to Gawker from the sex tape was $15 million, while another, on behalf of the defendant, told the jury it was just $11,000. The focus of the coming proceedings will likely be whether the First Amendment should have precluded claims and whether Gawker got a fair trial.The trial also featured less salacious elements, with experts delving into the media business through discussion of digital marketing and web analytics. Gawker has already indicated it will appeal. A stunned-looking Nick Denton watched from the gallery and took a deep breath. In reaching its verdict, the jury tipped that scale towards privacy. You're balancing the right to make the speech versus privacy rights." "This case is unique … You're not going to condemn someone's right to engage in speech. "This is not about political speech," rebutted Turkel to the jury. ![]() "We need a First Amendment to protect what's controversial." "We don't need the First Amendment to protect what's popular," responded Gawker attorney Michael Sullivan in his own closing. "Do you think the media can do whatever they want?" asked Hogan's attorney Ken Turkel in closing arguments. Gawker founder Nick Denton talks with his legal team before Hulk Hogan testifies in court, St Petersburg, Florida March 8, 2016. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |