Not a lawyer but the whole point of that case was that Gawker was already ordered to take down the video and then went on to willingly ignore court orders.
I believe it was mostly about invasion of privacy. There was an expectation of privacy where they recorded it. It was nowhere close to libel because it was him saying what he did. If Gawker wouldn't have (ad)dressed (the court order) the way they did, they wouldn't have been raped. But Gawker was totally asking for it (by defying a court order).
You can't say I don't give a shit when it comes to a court order, you must follow them or you will end up like what happened to Gawker. You know if the tables were turned, Gawker would have been screaming about how someone was defying a court order. It also didn't help that the totally not a tard Nick Denton, said that they would knowingly publish child porn.
Unpopular legal opinion time. That interim order was a massive fuck-up by the court. Publication on the internet is continuous, so saying "take it down" is prior restraint on free speech.
Constitutional caselaw really, really hates prior restraint -- you are supposed to get compensation after someone says something, not stop them beforehand. So to use it in an interim order (before the merits of the case were heard) was incredibly out of line.
If they had appealed the interim order, they almost certainly would have won.
Why would you want an explanation from a professional in the field when you don't understand it? I mean I could break it down into layman's terms but it would be a lot quicker/easily digestable for someone not in the profession to peruse any of the hundreds of articles that have explained it for the common man.
I think there is a pretty substantial case to be made against Buzzfeed. Not because of the story, but because the admission by the Editor that they knew the story was most likely fake and ran with it anyway.
They didn't claim Trump collaborated with the Russians and got peed on by prostitutes in a Moscow Hotel room, they claimed there was a memo circulating that contained the allegations that Trump collaborated with the Russians and got peed on by prostitutes in a Moscow Hotel room. And that CNN is reporting that portions of the memo were added to an intelligence brief. And oh by the way, here's that memo.
The problem with that line of thinking is that the editor showed intent to do harm to Trump's brand by acknowledging it was probably false and then printing it after stating that he would not do basically the same thing in similar incident with Hillary a few months ago.
20 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-01-12
No wonder you have an army of pretentious neckbeard losers following you around
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a ThyDocco 2017-01-12
As a lawyer it pains me to read /u/CarnageV1 implying the Hulk Hogan case was anywhere close to a libel suit.
n/a riemann1413 2017-01-12
hey man a media outlet i don't like said a thing someone else doesn't like
it's all the same tbh
n/a ThyDocco 2017-01-12
Wow law is not that simple friend
Source: am a lawyer
n/a jubbergun 2017-01-12
If I had to compare this to any recently well-known case I'd say it's closer to the cases involving Rolling Stone over their UVA rape story.
n/a SlavophilesAnonymous 2017-01-12
Could you explain that case then?
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-01-12
Not a lawyer but the whole point of that case was that Gawker was already ordered to take down the video and then went on to willingly ignore court orders.
n/a icyhat 2017-01-12
I believe it was mostly about invasion of privacy. There was an expectation of privacy where they recorded it. It was nowhere close to libel because it was him saying what he did. If Gawker wouldn't have (ad)dressed (the court order) the way they did, they wouldn't have been raped. But Gawker was totally asking for it (by defying a court order).
You can't say I don't give a shit when it comes to a court order, you must follow them or you will end up like what happened to Gawker. You know if the tables were turned, Gawker would have been screaming about how someone was defying a court order. It also didn't help that the totally not a tard Nick Denton, said that they would knowingly publish child porn.
n/a Going_up_the_Country 2017-01-12
Unpopular legal opinion time. That interim order was a massive fuck-up by the court. Publication on the internet is continuous, so saying "take it down" is prior restraint on free speech.
Constitutional caselaw really, really hates prior restraint -- you are supposed to get compensation after someone says something, not stop them beforehand. So to use it in an interim order (before the merits of the case were heard) was incredibly out of line.
If they had appealed the interim order, they almost certainly would have won.
n/a ThyDocco 2017-01-12
Sorry was sleeping, busy day at the Law office yesterday.
That said why do you need the case explained to you? Because you don't understand it or because you want to know why it wasn't a libel case?
For the latter all you have to do is view the court documents and see what Hogan was taking them to court over (It wasn't libel).
n/a SlavophilesAnonymous 2017-01-12
Former.
n/a riemann1413 2017-01-12
yes, gawker is a former journalism outfit. why is that relevant?
n/a ThyDocco 2017-01-12
Why would you want an explanation from a professional in the field when you don't understand it? I mean I could break it down into layman's terms but it would be a lot quicker/easily digestable for someone not in the profession to peruse any of the hundreds of articles that have explained it for the common man.
n/a Tar-mairon 2017-01-12
I think anyone who isn't a moron can see the difference
n/a itsactuallyobama 2017-01-12
I would die of drama overload happiness if Trump sued Buzzfeed.
n/a MaddogOIF 2017-01-12
Damn they have a hard on for CNN it seems.
n/a OnlyRacistOnReddit 2017-01-12
I think there is a pretty substantial case to be made against Buzzfeed. Not because of the story, but because the admission by the Editor that they knew the story was most likely fake and ran with it anyway.
n/a SmurfPrivilege 2017-01-12
They didn't claim Trump collaborated with the Russians and got peed on by prostitutes in a Moscow Hotel room, they claimed there was a memo circulating that contained the allegations that Trump collaborated with the Russians and got peed on by prostitutes in a Moscow Hotel room. And that CNN is reporting that portions of the memo were added to an intelligence brief. And oh by the way, here's that memo.
n/a OnlyRacistOnReddit 2017-01-12
The problem with that line of thinking is that the editor showed intent to do harm to Trump's brand by acknowledging it was probably false and then printing it after stating that he would not do basically the same thing in similar incident with Hillary a few months ago.
n/a Somenakedguy 2017-01-12
Huh? That still doesn't even remotely constitute libel.
n/a SamWhite 2017-01-12
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is libel or not.