Kemo
03-10-2016, 05:02 PM
mjnuRvYSRM8
If everything goes as planned, we’re only 20% of the way through the civil trial in the lawsuit filed by Terry “Hulk Hogan” Bollea against Gawker Media, founder Nick Denton, and former editor Albert James “A.J.” Daulerio. Today, at least as far as the mainstream media was concerned, the playback of Daulerio’s videotaped deposition testimony was the top story. Why? Because he said something stupid.
Daulerio wrote the article accompanying the video on top of making various related editorial decisions. During the deposition, he was asked by Hogan’s lawyer about what would be out of bounds, and this happened:
Q. So it’s fair to say that whether he suffered emotional distress or not that played no part in your decision about whether and what to publish?
A. Correct.
Q. Is it your view that any celebrity sex tape is newsworthy?
A. No.
Q. What sort of celebrity sex tapes would not be newsworthy?
A. I couldn’t say specifically.
Q. Well, can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?
SETH BERLIN (Gawker Attorney): Objection, cails for speculation, but you can answer.
A. If they were a child.
Q. Under what age?
A. Four.
Q. No four-year-old sex tapes, okay…
[Pivots to a new question]
Newspapers from all over the world quickly jumped on this. From the video and in full context, it’s somewhat obvious that Daulerio, upset by the line of questioning after he answered it, is being flippant, but that’s not how most outlets covered it. That necessitated this statement from Gawker:
He’d just said in the prior answer that that he wouldn’t post a tape of a child and when the question was repeated he obviously made the point in a flip way because his answer was already clear.
Still, it definitely felt like Hogan’s side got what they wanted, making him look callous. He also came off especially badly when he said that he didn’t consider having the nudity/sexual contact pixelated in the “highlight” video Gawker made of the sex tape…because he knew he was labelling it NSFW (not safe for work). Overall, a win for Gawker, especially given his overall demeanor, which Anna Phillips of the Tampa Bay Times had the best tweet about:
This is like watching a recalcitrant child be questioned. Mumbling, monosyllabic responses. #hulkvsgawk
— Anna Phillips (@annamphillips) March 9, 2016
Denton also had his own deposition playback, coming off much better than Daulerio in the process. Still no good answer for the lack of pixelation or censor bars, but he said that he was not nearly as intrigued or excited about getting the video as others at Gawker, including Daulerio, were.
As live testimony went, David Houston, Hogan’s personal attorney, was the main event today, trying to emphasize how the video was shot without Bollea/Hogan’s consent, how embarrassing it was, how many sites complied with his cease and desist letter, and so on. It was clear that he had prepped heavily, if just because of how deliberate this moment came off:
Hulkster's lawyer was distraught when he saw the Hogan sex tape on SlutLoad dot com pic.twitter.com/vzeGAm2MBp
— Busted Coverage (@bustedcoverage) March 9, 2016
On cross examination, Gawker’s counsel did poke some holes in his testimony, though. It took some cajoling to get Houston to admit that he was joking about the video on on TMZ Live in March 2012. What happened there was that He and Bollea/Hogan yukked it up about how they were glad the video didn’t show a man. While not mentioned in court, it was perhaps extra bad judgment since one of their interviewers, Harvey Levin, is openly gay. Also, at first, Houston was insistent that he and Bollea/Hogan were only trying to get the video taken down, not the article accompanied. The problem? That’s not true, and the federal lawsuit that they filed at one point is all the proof you need:
Proof (from fed. complaint) that Hogan DID try to remove the article itself, which David Houston denied #hulkvsgawk pic.twitter.com/D9S1E3Xrwp
— David Bixenspan (@davidbix) March 9, 2016
It’s also more than a bit strange that, given the plaintiffs’ legal strategy of differentiating Hulk Hogan from Terry Bollea in very specific ways.
Journalistic ethics expert Michael Foley (no, not that one) closed out the day with live testimony. The Bollea defense team finished their direct examination to close the day and Gawker will question him on cross examination in the morning. So far, his testimony was mostly what you would expect, though all of his testimony relates to professional ethics as opposed to the law so far.
If everything goes as planned, we’re only 20% of the way through the civil trial in the lawsuit filed by Terry “Hulk Hogan” Bollea against Gawker Media, founder Nick Denton, and former editor Albert James “A.J.” Daulerio. Today, at least as far as the mainstream media was concerned, the playback of Daulerio’s videotaped deposition testimony was the top story. Why? Because he said something stupid.
Daulerio wrote the article accompanying the video on top of making various related editorial decisions. During the deposition, he was asked by Hogan’s lawyer about what would be out of bounds, and this happened:
Q. So it’s fair to say that whether he suffered emotional distress or not that played no part in your decision about whether and what to publish?
A. Correct.
Q. Is it your view that any celebrity sex tape is newsworthy?
A. No.
Q. What sort of celebrity sex tapes would not be newsworthy?
A. I couldn’t say specifically.
Q. Well, can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?
SETH BERLIN (Gawker Attorney): Objection, cails for speculation, but you can answer.
A. If they were a child.
Q. Under what age?
A. Four.
Q. No four-year-old sex tapes, okay…
[Pivots to a new question]
Newspapers from all over the world quickly jumped on this. From the video and in full context, it’s somewhat obvious that Daulerio, upset by the line of questioning after he answered it, is being flippant, but that’s not how most outlets covered it. That necessitated this statement from Gawker:
He’d just said in the prior answer that that he wouldn’t post a tape of a child and when the question was repeated he obviously made the point in a flip way because his answer was already clear.
Still, it definitely felt like Hogan’s side got what they wanted, making him look callous. He also came off especially badly when he said that he didn’t consider having the nudity/sexual contact pixelated in the “highlight” video Gawker made of the sex tape…because he knew he was labelling it NSFW (not safe for work). Overall, a win for Gawker, especially given his overall demeanor, which Anna Phillips of the Tampa Bay Times had the best tweet about:
This is like watching a recalcitrant child be questioned. Mumbling, monosyllabic responses. #hulkvsgawk
— Anna Phillips (@annamphillips) March 9, 2016
Denton also had his own deposition playback, coming off much better than Daulerio in the process. Still no good answer for the lack of pixelation or censor bars, but he said that he was not nearly as intrigued or excited about getting the video as others at Gawker, including Daulerio, were.
As live testimony went, David Houston, Hogan’s personal attorney, was the main event today, trying to emphasize how the video was shot without Bollea/Hogan’s consent, how embarrassing it was, how many sites complied with his cease and desist letter, and so on. It was clear that he had prepped heavily, if just because of how deliberate this moment came off:
Hulkster's lawyer was distraught when he saw the Hogan sex tape on SlutLoad dot com pic.twitter.com/vzeGAm2MBp
— Busted Coverage (@bustedcoverage) March 9, 2016
On cross examination, Gawker’s counsel did poke some holes in his testimony, though. It took some cajoling to get Houston to admit that he was joking about the video on on TMZ Live in March 2012. What happened there was that He and Bollea/Hogan yukked it up about how they were glad the video didn’t show a man. While not mentioned in court, it was perhaps extra bad judgment since one of their interviewers, Harvey Levin, is openly gay. Also, at first, Houston was insistent that he and Bollea/Hogan were only trying to get the video taken down, not the article accompanied. The problem? That’s not true, and the federal lawsuit that they filed at one point is all the proof you need:
Proof (from fed. complaint) that Hogan DID try to remove the article itself, which David Houston denied #hulkvsgawk pic.twitter.com/D9S1E3Xrwp
— David Bixenspan (@davidbix) March 9, 2016
It’s also more than a bit strange that, given the plaintiffs’ legal strategy of differentiating Hulk Hogan from Terry Bollea in very specific ways.
Journalistic ethics expert Michael Foley (no, not that one) closed out the day with live testimony. The Bollea defense team finished their direct examination to close the day and Gawker will question him on cross examination in the morning. So far, his testimony was mostly what you would expect, though all of his testimony relates to professional ethics as opposed to the law so far.