Kemo
03-04-2016, 10:54 PM
LmPis1-wJlo
The biggest mainstream pro wrestling story of 2016 (at least that we know about so far) is getting underway, and there’s a lot to unpack. However, as far as what you need to know the follow the case, it may be more simple than you think. Here’s our primer:
Who exactly are the parties involved?
Officially, the name of the case is Terry Gene Bollea (professionally known as Hulk Hogan) v. Gawker Media, LLC (A.KA Gawker Media), Nick Denton, and A.J. Daulerio. Gawker Media owns its namesake Gawker.com (sort of a tabloid gossip outlet turned political website) as well as other sites ranging from Deadspin.com for sports coverage to Gizmodo.com for gadgets, Kotaku.com for video games, and Jezebel.com for women’s issues. Denton is the founder and principle owner of Gawker, with Daulerio being the Editor in Chief of both Gawker.com and Gawker Media when Hogan sued back in October 2012. Daulerio also wrote the article about the Hogan sex tape that’s at the center of the case.
Wait, Hogan made a sex tape? On purpose?
No, not on purpose. When his marriage to his first wife Linda was on the rocks in 2007, Hogan’s then-best friend, radio personality Bubba the Love Sponge Clem (his legal name) and his then-wife, Heather Cole, suggested that Heather would be interested in some no strings attached sex with him. Hogan knew that their house was wired with security cameras, and asked Bubba before (at least) the first encounter if he was being filmed. Bubba said no, but he was lying, although Heather knew that she and Hogan were on-camera. Three videos were made (it’s unclear if there was more encounters than just those that were taped), all without Hogan’s knowledge or permission.
But I saw the video, and it looked like Hogan was aware of the camera.
Heather later told Tampa police that she positioned Hogan for the camera at Bubba’s request, as “[he] could be very controlling.”
So Bubba and Heather published it?
No. When they got divorced in late 2011-early 2012, Bubba moved some items out of the house and into his office drawer at the radio station, including the DVDs of her with Hogan and a few other men. Someone (believed by the police to beBubba employee Matt “Spiceboy” Loyd) stole the DVDs and started shopping them around, with TMZ’s Mike Walters putting him touch with a “sex tape broker,” Los Angeles-based lawyer Keith Davidson. Davidson didn’t find the interest they were hoping for, even after leaking screenshots to TheDirty.com, though TMZ did pay $8,000 to get possession of copies of the DVDs.
Several months later, in October 2012, after the story had seemingly long since died off, Gawker.com posted an article by Daulerio titled “Even for a Minute, Watching Hulk Hogan Have Sex in a Canopy Bed is Not Safe For Work but Watch it Anyway (http://gawker.com/5948770/even-for-a-minute-watching-hulk-hogan-have-sex-in-a-canopy-bed-is-not-safe-for-work-but-watch-it-anyway).” It was accompanied by a heavily edited version of one of the DVDs, which Gawker had been sent anonymously, while A.J. Daulerio’s article itself mused about both how “unsexy” the video was and the nature of celebrity sex tapes in general. When Hogan sued, he was able to quickly get the video taken down.
0kmuqSN59vQ
Wait, so this Spiceboy guy sent it to Gawker? Or was it Bubba…or Heather?
Most likely none of the above. Loyd’s alleged accomplices told police that when they tried to make a deal to sell the tape to Hogan, they were advised by Davidson, the sex tape broker, to tell him that they were the Gawker source. In actuality, they had no idea who was responsible for sending the DVD to Gawker. Davidson was concerned that if Hogan thought the Gawker source was still out there and not part of the deal, he’d call off negotiations. The negotiation turned out to be an act on Hogan’s part, but…well, more on that in a bit. Regardless, reading the police report for the investigation into the theft of the DVDs, the only possible inference is that Spiceboy and company (who weren’t prosecuted, to Bubba’s frustration) weren’t who sent the DVD to Gawker.
Still, shouldn’t Hogan have sued Bubba and Heather?
He did. They eventually settled and were dropped from the lawsuit, with Bubba only paying $5,000 (yes, five thousand) and pledging to help Hogan (and not help Gawker) in the lawsuit.
So back to Gawker. What exactly is Hogan suing over and how much is he asking for in damages?
Hogan’s complaint includes counts of invasion of privacy, publication of private facts, violation of Florida’s “right of publicity” law, and both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. He’s asking for $100 million in damages, and will try use the potential retail value of the video as a way to make that amount seem credible, as odd as it sounds.
o1HcsnBS3n8
$100 million? Wow. So how much money did Gawker make off the video?
Directly? $0. Gawker has a policy of not running advertisements on “NSFW” (Not Safe For Work) articles, so with the article/video getting millions of hits (Hogan’s side claims 7 million people watched it), any ad revenue would be indirect, either from the article leading readers to other things on the site that had ads or from an increase in Gawker’s brand awareness.
Why didn’t Gawker just settle, anyway? Isn’t this kind of an open and shut case? That sounds like something you just can’t do.
This is where it gets tricky.
Gawker clearly ran everything by their lawyers before publishing everything. The video they ran, which is the main concern (Hogan had tried to get the article pulled, too, and the judge agreed before being quickly reversed on appeal), was edited so that it contained only eight seconds of sexual contact, which could be theoretically justified as verifying the authenticity of the video and illustrate the story. The article put it in a larger context. It’s obvious that they didn’t take this lightly.
Their defense is that publishing the edited video (at the top of the article that contextualized it) was in the public interest. Why?
Not only had Hogan publicly denied having sex with Heather Cole after he already had, but he had increasingly made his sexuality and his sex life part of his public persona. In the years preceding all of this, Hogan’s appearances on both Bubba Clem and Howard Stern’s radio shows had included a lot of graphic sexual discussion about his relationship with both of his wife. Gawker even cited a photo shoot he did for men’s magazine “Oui” (a censored version from the National Examiner tabloid can be seen on Kevin Eck’s blog (http://kevineckwrestling.sportsblog.com/posts/2802050/long-before-hulk-hogan-s-sex-tape-scandal-there-was--hulk-s-porn-past-.html)) to promote Rocky III where two topless women were grinding against him.
It does kind of sound ridiculous, but every legal expert who’s weighed in on the case thinks Gawker will prevail in the end, even if it means filing an appeal. Even if you think it’s morally wrong, it may not be legally wrong.
What about criminal charges?
Those would be for Bubba Clem, not Gawker, and the statute of limitations in Florida expired before Hogan even knew that he’d been filmed.
5AtbuCwl3nA
If Gawker will win in the end, what are all of these stories about the case putting Gawker out of business talking about?
To appeal a jury award in Florida (and the jury finding for Hogan is far from out of the question), you need to post a bond for the award plus two years’ worth of interest. So with a $100 million award or anything close, it could be problematic for Gawker.
What’s the actual real-world significance of the case?
Depending on how far it goes in terms of appeals, it could end up being a very important case in setting a precedent for what’s considered newsworthy and what’s private. As Seth Berlin, the lead counsel of Gawker’s team, put it to the New York Times: “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.” Hogan’s lawyer, David Houston, countered by telling the Times that “There’s a world of difference between discussing something and showing a pornographic video, something that goes online and can be seen forever.”
At one point, the judge presiding over the case, Judge Pamela Campbell, actually ordered Gawker to pull not just the video, but also the article. Ordering Gawker to take down the article along with the tape shocked and concerned the news media, as it was borderline unprecedented. Gawker refused to pull the article, and had Campbell’s ruling overturned on appeal (Gawker never put the video back up, though). And this was all years before they went to trial, so you can see what kind of stakes there are and why this case is a big deal: It’s at an intersection of celebrity gossip, freedom of the press, the legal world, etc.
Also: This is the first time any kind of “celebrity sex tape” lawsuit has gone to trial. All past cases were settled or otherwise dismissed.
Wait, why do I feel like I might have heard of a Pamela Campbell in Florida before?
Judge Pamela Campbell was the lawyer for the Schindlers, Terri Schiavo’s parents, in their legal battle with her husband, Michael Schiavo. Just read the Wikipedia entry because there’s too much to rehash here. Campbell was appointed to the bench by former Florida governor turned recently failed presidential candidate Jeb Bush about 18 months after the end of the Schiavo case.
fRpnLCvRhkw
How do those racist comments Hogan made fit into this?
They came from one of the two videos that Gawker didn’t get. When the people who stole them were shopping them around, they produced a “summary transcript” of the video that included some of Hogan’s comments, and it was turned over to Gawker during the discovery process. Gawker also got some related items from the FBI.
…what?
Hogan went to the FBI, alleging that Sex Tape Broker Keith Davidson tried to to extort him. Gawker eventually had to sue the FBI to get the records of the investigation, which won’t be admitted into evidence at trial. The investigation resulted in a sting operation and they amassed some compelling evidence, but nobody was charged (even after a grand jury was convened) and the reasoning for that has not been made public. The speculation is that it was because Hogan was concerned about the racist comments getting out, but there’s no way to be sure.
So Gawker leaked the racist stuff?
They say they didn’t and the reporter who broke the story says they didn’t, but Hogan thinks they did. On one hand, it getting out helped sway some potential jurors against Hogan. On the other hand, everything Gawker got containing the relevant information was sealed by the judge, and if they were found to be responsible, Hogan would get the equivalent of a default judgment in his favor. So it would have been incredibly risky.
How long will this trial last?
About three weeks.
The biggest mainstream pro wrestling story of 2016 (at least that we know about so far) is getting underway, and there’s a lot to unpack. However, as far as what you need to know the follow the case, it may be more simple than you think. Here’s our primer:
Who exactly are the parties involved?
Officially, the name of the case is Terry Gene Bollea (professionally known as Hulk Hogan) v. Gawker Media, LLC (A.KA Gawker Media), Nick Denton, and A.J. Daulerio. Gawker Media owns its namesake Gawker.com (sort of a tabloid gossip outlet turned political website) as well as other sites ranging from Deadspin.com for sports coverage to Gizmodo.com for gadgets, Kotaku.com for video games, and Jezebel.com for women’s issues. Denton is the founder and principle owner of Gawker, with Daulerio being the Editor in Chief of both Gawker.com and Gawker Media when Hogan sued back in October 2012. Daulerio also wrote the article about the Hogan sex tape that’s at the center of the case.
Wait, Hogan made a sex tape? On purpose?
No, not on purpose. When his marriage to his first wife Linda was on the rocks in 2007, Hogan’s then-best friend, radio personality Bubba the Love Sponge Clem (his legal name) and his then-wife, Heather Cole, suggested that Heather would be interested in some no strings attached sex with him. Hogan knew that their house was wired with security cameras, and asked Bubba before (at least) the first encounter if he was being filmed. Bubba said no, but he was lying, although Heather knew that she and Hogan were on-camera. Three videos were made (it’s unclear if there was more encounters than just those that were taped), all without Hogan’s knowledge or permission.
But I saw the video, and it looked like Hogan was aware of the camera.
Heather later told Tampa police that she positioned Hogan for the camera at Bubba’s request, as “[he] could be very controlling.”
So Bubba and Heather published it?
No. When they got divorced in late 2011-early 2012, Bubba moved some items out of the house and into his office drawer at the radio station, including the DVDs of her with Hogan and a few other men. Someone (believed by the police to beBubba employee Matt “Spiceboy” Loyd) stole the DVDs and started shopping them around, with TMZ’s Mike Walters putting him touch with a “sex tape broker,” Los Angeles-based lawyer Keith Davidson. Davidson didn’t find the interest they were hoping for, even after leaking screenshots to TheDirty.com, though TMZ did pay $8,000 to get possession of copies of the DVDs.
Several months later, in October 2012, after the story had seemingly long since died off, Gawker.com posted an article by Daulerio titled “Even for a Minute, Watching Hulk Hogan Have Sex in a Canopy Bed is Not Safe For Work but Watch it Anyway (http://gawker.com/5948770/even-for-a-minute-watching-hulk-hogan-have-sex-in-a-canopy-bed-is-not-safe-for-work-but-watch-it-anyway).” It was accompanied by a heavily edited version of one of the DVDs, which Gawker had been sent anonymously, while A.J. Daulerio’s article itself mused about both how “unsexy” the video was and the nature of celebrity sex tapes in general. When Hogan sued, he was able to quickly get the video taken down.
0kmuqSN59vQ
Wait, so this Spiceboy guy sent it to Gawker? Or was it Bubba…or Heather?
Most likely none of the above. Loyd’s alleged accomplices told police that when they tried to make a deal to sell the tape to Hogan, they were advised by Davidson, the sex tape broker, to tell him that they were the Gawker source. In actuality, they had no idea who was responsible for sending the DVD to Gawker. Davidson was concerned that if Hogan thought the Gawker source was still out there and not part of the deal, he’d call off negotiations. The negotiation turned out to be an act on Hogan’s part, but…well, more on that in a bit. Regardless, reading the police report for the investigation into the theft of the DVDs, the only possible inference is that Spiceboy and company (who weren’t prosecuted, to Bubba’s frustration) weren’t who sent the DVD to Gawker.
Still, shouldn’t Hogan have sued Bubba and Heather?
He did. They eventually settled and were dropped from the lawsuit, with Bubba only paying $5,000 (yes, five thousand) and pledging to help Hogan (and not help Gawker) in the lawsuit.
So back to Gawker. What exactly is Hogan suing over and how much is he asking for in damages?
Hogan’s complaint includes counts of invasion of privacy, publication of private facts, violation of Florida’s “right of publicity” law, and both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. He’s asking for $100 million in damages, and will try use the potential retail value of the video as a way to make that amount seem credible, as odd as it sounds.
o1HcsnBS3n8
$100 million? Wow. So how much money did Gawker make off the video?
Directly? $0. Gawker has a policy of not running advertisements on “NSFW” (Not Safe For Work) articles, so with the article/video getting millions of hits (Hogan’s side claims 7 million people watched it), any ad revenue would be indirect, either from the article leading readers to other things on the site that had ads or from an increase in Gawker’s brand awareness.
Why didn’t Gawker just settle, anyway? Isn’t this kind of an open and shut case? That sounds like something you just can’t do.
This is where it gets tricky.
Gawker clearly ran everything by their lawyers before publishing everything. The video they ran, which is the main concern (Hogan had tried to get the article pulled, too, and the judge agreed before being quickly reversed on appeal), was edited so that it contained only eight seconds of sexual contact, which could be theoretically justified as verifying the authenticity of the video and illustrate the story. The article put it in a larger context. It’s obvious that they didn’t take this lightly.
Their defense is that publishing the edited video (at the top of the article that contextualized it) was in the public interest. Why?
Not only had Hogan publicly denied having sex with Heather Cole after he already had, but he had increasingly made his sexuality and his sex life part of his public persona. In the years preceding all of this, Hogan’s appearances on both Bubba Clem and Howard Stern’s radio shows had included a lot of graphic sexual discussion about his relationship with both of his wife. Gawker even cited a photo shoot he did for men’s magazine “Oui” (a censored version from the National Examiner tabloid can be seen on Kevin Eck’s blog (http://kevineckwrestling.sportsblog.com/posts/2802050/long-before-hulk-hogan-s-sex-tape-scandal-there-was--hulk-s-porn-past-.html)) to promote Rocky III where two topless women were grinding against him.
It does kind of sound ridiculous, but every legal expert who’s weighed in on the case thinks Gawker will prevail in the end, even if it means filing an appeal. Even if you think it’s morally wrong, it may not be legally wrong.
What about criminal charges?
Those would be for Bubba Clem, not Gawker, and the statute of limitations in Florida expired before Hogan even knew that he’d been filmed.
5AtbuCwl3nA
If Gawker will win in the end, what are all of these stories about the case putting Gawker out of business talking about?
To appeal a jury award in Florida (and the jury finding for Hogan is far from out of the question), you need to post a bond for the award plus two years’ worth of interest. So with a $100 million award or anything close, it could be problematic for Gawker.
What’s the actual real-world significance of the case?
Depending on how far it goes in terms of appeals, it could end up being a very important case in setting a precedent for what’s considered newsworthy and what’s private. As Seth Berlin, the lead counsel of Gawker’s team, put it to the New York Times: “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.” Hogan’s lawyer, David Houston, countered by telling the Times that “There’s a world of difference between discussing something and showing a pornographic video, something that goes online and can be seen forever.”
At one point, the judge presiding over the case, Judge Pamela Campbell, actually ordered Gawker to pull not just the video, but also the article. Ordering Gawker to take down the article along with the tape shocked and concerned the news media, as it was borderline unprecedented. Gawker refused to pull the article, and had Campbell’s ruling overturned on appeal (Gawker never put the video back up, though). And this was all years before they went to trial, so you can see what kind of stakes there are and why this case is a big deal: It’s at an intersection of celebrity gossip, freedom of the press, the legal world, etc.
Also: This is the first time any kind of “celebrity sex tape” lawsuit has gone to trial. All past cases were settled or otherwise dismissed.
Wait, why do I feel like I might have heard of a Pamela Campbell in Florida before?
Judge Pamela Campbell was the lawyer for the Schindlers, Terri Schiavo’s parents, in their legal battle with her husband, Michael Schiavo. Just read the Wikipedia entry because there’s too much to rehash here. Campbell was appointed to the bench by former Florida governor turned recently failed presidential candidate Jeb Bush about 18 months after the end of the Schiavo case.
fRpnLCvRhkw
How do those racist comments Hogan made fit into this?
They came from one of the two videos that Gawker didn’t get. When the people who stole them were shopping them around, they produced a “summary transcript” of the video that included some of Hogan’s comments, and it was turned over to Gawker during the discovery process. Gawker also got some related items from the FBI.
…what?
Hogan went to the FBI, alleging that Sex Tape Broker Keith Davidson tried to to extort him. Gawker eventually had to sue the FBI to get the records of the investigation, which won’t be admitted into evidence at trial. The investigation resulted in a sting operation and they amassed some compelling evidence, but nobody was charged (even after a grand jury was convened) and the reasoning for that has not been made public. The speculation is that it was because Hogan was concerned about the racist comments getting out, but there’s no way to be sure.
So Gawker leaked the racist stuff?
They say they didn’t and the reporter who broke the story says they didn’t, but Hogan thinks they did. On one hand, it getting out helped sway some potential jurors against Hogan. On the other hand, everything Gawker got containing the relevant information was sealed by the judge, and if they were found to be responsible, Hogan would get the equivalent of a default judgment in his favor. So it would have been incredibly risky.
How long will this trial last?
About three weeks.