Popular Culture

Florida Jury Awards $115 Million to Hulk Hogan in His Gawker Lawsuit

Gawker will appeal


U.S. military

A Florida jury found in favor of Terry Bollea, a.k.a Hulk Hogan, in his lawsuit against Gawker over the media website's decision to post portions of a sex tape depicting Hogan having sex with a friend's wife, awarding him $115 millionโ€”$60 million for "emotional distress" and $55 million for "economic damages. The jury will consider the amount for punitive damages Monday.

Gawker says it is going to appeal. In a statement released to the press, Nick Denton, the founder of Gawker, blamed the verdict on the decision to withhold "key evidence and the most important witness," referring to the judge's decision not to compel radio host Bubba "the Love Sponge" Clem to testify.

Gawker asserts that Bubba installed the camera that recorded Bollea and that the wrestler was aware his sexual encounter with Bubba's wife was being recorded. Gawker argues the sex tape was newsworthy because of Hulk Hogan's statements on Bubba's show and elsewhere in the media about whether he slept with his friends' wives or was otherwise unfaithful to his own.

"We all the knew the appeals court will need to resolve the case," Denton said.

On the stand, Bollea argued that he and Hulk Hogan were essentially different people and that he was therefore not a public figure the way his character Hulk Hogan was. Hogan's attorneys argued that his lawsuit wasn't an attack on free speech, but rather a defense of privacy.

"You're not going to condemn someone's right to engage in speech," Hogan's attorney Ken Turkel argued in closing statements. "You're balancing the right to make the speech versus privacy rights."

If it is forced to pay the fine, Gawker will almost certainly have to shut down its operation, and that'll be a result of a decision against its right to engage in free expression and free press.

NEXT: Why Don't Tech Innovators Solve America's Gun Problems?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Such an important "free expression" case! Where was the ACLU? Gawker and the so-called "First Amendment community" (ha-ha) may wish to take this opportunity to reflect upon the fact that when you don't stand up for everyone's "rights," you shouldn't be surprised when your own "rights" are trampled over with big black boots. This perfectly appropriate verdict will eventually be lost in the "information overload" of the Internet media age, just like the one in America's leading criminal "satire" case (more "free expression rights" baloney), documented at:


      1. Why do the rich, powerful, and famous have FAR more "free expression" rights than dirt-poor people?

        Dirt-poor hookers turn a $50 or $100 "trick" in the streets? Off to jail with them! Courtesy of Government Almighty!

        Hooker Hulk Hogan turns a $115 million trick? Government Almighty is his Chief Hit-man Enforcer to collect his $115 payment-due for turning the trick! I think we all (the public and the taxpayers) are the "trick" that are getting fucked in these kinds of "free expressions" of those who hit the lawsuit lottery jackpot for being low-life SCUM!

        1. On the contrary, there is growing recognition that poor people, fraudulent Internet Trolls, and the gossip "press" rarely express themselves appropriately, and what they have to say generally merits less protection than the important messages conveyed by prominent, well-connected members of the community. The "truth," regardless of its "public interest," is neither an excuse nor a defense, and words need to be protected from those who would twist them to stir up unwanted controversy (this is particularly so in academic contexts, where damage to reputations has far greater consequences). Hogan deserves full compensation for this outrageous abuse of a "free speech" Internet site for inappropriate purposes.

          Incidentally, just to put an end to any of the little "ambiguities" that have impeded the course of justice in certain matters, New York legislators have now introduced a bill clarifying that 2-7 years will be the prison term for online impersonators. Hopefully we will be able to apply this retroactively to certain individuals. See:


  1. "We all the knew the appeals court will need to resolve the case," Denton said.

    Is that what he really said? I mean, he's the founder of Gawker, so I can see him being that poor a speaker, but that looks like a typo...

  2. "We all the knew the appeals court will need to resolve the case," Denton said.

    No, you fucking didn't know that.

    Gawker is fucked. Good.

    1. Those are good union jobs asshole.

    2. Principals over principles, eh?

      1. What principle? Hogan's sex tape is as "newsworthy" (God, I hate that word) as your father's hatband. Be honest with me, how would any aspect of your life change if you had no knowledge of Hogan's sex tape? Is there any compelling reason for the general public to have access to images of Hulk Hogan's dark orange-hued ass bouncing up and down on top of a butterface? If so, tell me!

        1. You had me at bouncing up and down.

          Wait, No, you had me at butterface.

        2. Who are you to judge what is newsworthy?

          If the husband made the video, he presumably wanted it. Would you also tell him he erred?

          Principles, buddy, maybe you have heard of them. Maybe once upon a time, liberty was in your vocabulary. But then you couldn't stand the idea of being on the same side of liberty as gawker of all things, so you laughed and said "Not this time, sucker!"

          1. What about "making money publishing surreptitiously-recorded sextapes" has anything to do with "liberty", again?

            1. I think it's in Federalist... 69?

            2. What about despising gawker has anything to do with principles?

              When the comments are full of gloating how gawker lost because they are scum, it's pretty obvious feelz rule.

              1. sorry - you seem to have played the "principles" card, and then resorted to the "people i don't like are winning" complaint.

                Answer my question = what about "publishing surreptitiously recorded sex-tapes is in the public interest"?

                1. Why does anything have to be in the public interest? What the hell does that have to do with liberty?

                  How does your discrading of principles due to your dislike of gawker turn into my hypocrisy?

                2. The only crime possible here was trespassing to install the camera. But if that was done by the property owner (I don't know one way or another), then there was no crime. Viewing the recording, publishing the recording -- these are not crimes. Things are not criminal, they are just things; we've been through numerous prohibitions showing the practical folly of that, even if you think it not true philosophically. Only actions which harm somebody are criminal.

                  It's like making it criminal to download child pornography -- the crime was the kidnapping and rape of a child, or the trespass to install a secret camera. Or there was the recent police station shootup which the shooter's two brothers recorded -- they were accomplices in the shootup, but the recording itself was not a crime, and distributing it and publishing it was not a crime.

                  Would describing the sex video be a crime? Would making an animated video version be a crime? Would even announcing the existence of the tape, or of the sex itself, be a crime? Where do you draw the line?

                  It's obvious you considered none of this. You simply despise gawker and think they got what was coming to them. You have no principles.

                3. Does any of that matter? This is a civil case, and Gawker's sole argument appears to have been "yup... we're assholes"

                  1. @Kandralla -- Hulk Hogan's sole argument is that he did something which ruined his reputation, and he wants to blame those who reported it. In libel and slander, I believe truth is an absolute defense. How can it be any less here, when he himself ruined his own reputation? If he had murdered someone, would he sue the police for reporting that?

                4. The sex itself could be criminal if it violated the wife's marriage contract, but in today's legal system, about all that could trigger is some pre-nuptial agreement. I dobt Hulk Hogan had any such contract with the husband. At any rate, recording such a criminal act could only be a crime if it involved trespassing, and it's ridiculous to consider reporting a crime to be criminal, or publishing evidence of a crime.

                  As for Hulk Hogan's claim that publishing the video cost him reputation and marketability, he's the one who did the deed which embarrassed him and he has only himself to blame. Again, would merely reporting the deed be cause for damages? Would drawing a cartoon of it, or making an animated cartoon, or using actors to reproduce the sex tape?

                  1. Gawker abuses the principle of the 1st Amendment by fomenting internet lynch mobs and deliberately setting out to ruin people's lives. Fuck them and fuck anyone who thinks they deserve a lick of support. "Principles" my ass.

                  2. Gawker in particular fucked itself by joking about child pornography during depositions. Great way to show that you take the responsibility behind freedom of speech seriously.

  3. OT: I got to meet Judge Kozinski in person today. Dry humored. He also referred to Romanians as "statist"; I've never heard a judge use that word, so it was kinda awesome.

    1. Where were you?

      He's local to me. You aren't.

      1. He came up to Montana.

    2. What 80s TV show was he from?

      1. I loved him in Beverly Hills Cop II.

        1. Wrong one.

          "Is this the gentleman who ruined the buffet at the Harrow club this morning?"

    3. His movie nights, to which he invites a few lawyer friends as well as other judges, are awesome. I was lucky to get invited once - the Judge was as gracious of a host as one could hope for. Nothing better than a federal judge concerned about whether you've had enough pizza.

      1. What in hades are you guys talking about and how do I get in on it?

        1. A certain libertarian judge.

    4. He's terrific. I heard him debate some other judge on the merits of criminal justice reforms. Cato hosted it. His friend didn't stand a chance.

  4. My faith in America is renewed

    Evil can only triumph when good men do not have 24inch Pythons

  5. I would like to see where they are going to get the money to put up the bond required to file an appeal.

    1. From donations from their subscri...hahahahaha!

    2. I like to imagine that people like Hamilton Nolan, Jordan Sargent, Alex Pareene, and Sam Biddle are all going to be putting Hulk Hogan's grandchildren through college. Which will cost $1million a year, of course.

    3. Aren't they owned by some media conglomerate?

      1. they soon will be.

  6. In Japan, if you get caught banging another guy's wife, you can be forced to pay isharyou, which is a type of compensation for screwing up another person's marriage. Can Bubba take Hogan to court in the States seeking similar redress?

    1. Bubba arranged it, and videoed it without Hulk's consent. So no. He wanted to watch someone fuck his wife.

      1. Ugh. Glad I'm not following this story.

      2. Cuck!!!!!!

        Yes, I am drunk enough to be amused by this....and not worry about the freedom of the press angle of it....yet.


        1. He burned a DVD labeled "Cuck", allegedly. I'm hours behind you, no hic yet.

          1. I knocked down three strong beverages, gratis the Chief Gnome at work. God bless him and his $100 bills at the bar. Then I came home and opened the bottle of shiraz... ๐Ÿ™‚

            1. That sounds like a potential headache.

              But it's good for you, I hear.

  7. Was anyone on Gawker's side on this?

    1. If it is forced to pay the fine, Gawker will almost certainly have to shut down its operation, and that'll be a result of a decision against its right to engage in free expression and free press.

      Ed seems to feel Gawker is being all repressed and stuff. unless i'm reading that very-ugly sentence wrong.

      1. Would you like some Penny Arcade as a palate cleanser? Because Reason writers are useless. At this point I'm donating for the use of H&R commenting.

        Gawker got hold of a Hulk Hogan sex tape and, to hear them tell it, thought that posting it online would be the perfect spire of human achievement. Publishing video of this orange, oblate spheroid squeezing and morphing - that's the profound working which Gawker has enabled, they're truly the catalyst for all that is best in our species. The ad revenue was a secondary concern, no doubt.
        Gawker is poison AIDS cancer. In the same way that the Cross is the symbol for the redemptive power of Christ's blood, Gawker is the symbol of a metastasized social media. Gawker is Nidhogg, the dragon which gnaws at the root of the World Tree. The causes they enunciate are tarnished, just for being in their mouths.

        1. Link for the whole thing. The comic (click on jpg icon) was pretty good, too.

          1. That...that...was...phenomenal, Pan Z!

            *buries gob in glass of shiraz, laughs*

          2. Thanks for sharing this. I have some respect for Penny Arcade. I'm not a fan of their Dickerdoodles but their comics are great

        2. Because Reason writers are useless.

          I don't really even get what Ed was saying there. its not really a "fine" = these are legal damages that resulted from an extended trial where they had every opportunity to present a robust defense.

          Once glance at excerpts from their depositions and their own testimony showed that they didn't lose because the court was so acrimonious to "free expression and the free press".....

          ....they lost because THEY ARE FUCKING HORRIBLE PEOPLE who couldn't even keep their own shitty entitled contempt for everyone under wraps while being filmed by lawyers. They might as well have whipped their dicks out in court and urinated on the jury going "Whoo hoo free press fuck y'all bitches!!"

          And if it destroys their operation? it was because they were idiots, not because the American legal system has somehow betrayed the 'free press'. If there's a strong argument that "celebrity sex tapes" are vital to the public interest, i somehow missed it.

          1. Journalists must be able to say or publish whatever the fuck they want, with no repercussion.

            Unless they are Mark Steyn, because fuck that guy as far as Reason is concerned.

            1. It's true now that you mention it, they rarely speak about him and from where I sit he's worthy of the odd link or discussion.

              1. He's being sued for libel by Michael Mann. The case is about to enter its fourth year, because Mann is a turd who is using process as punishment. Only note Reason ever made* was a 24/7 (remember those?) news item.

                *or rather! the only one I found using their search engine

                1. This bugs me too. Steyn has been suffering under the process of the lawsuit for years, simply for calling Mann a fraud. I wondered if Reason ever addressed it. Steyn won a landmark victory in Canada a few years back against some "human rights" panel that wanted to shut him up too.

                  He is constantly hawking merchandise to pay for his end of the ongoing case. I'd love to see Reason come to his defense.

            2. Yep, that pretty sums up how the left liberals and fake libertarians see it.

          2. And if it destroys their operation? it was because they were idiots, not because the American legal system has somehow betrayed the 'free press'.

            They were idiots in the sense that the a guy who is summarily executed by a cop for saying "fuck you, pig" is an idiot. Dumb they may be, but the outcome is still a miscarriage of justice and another in a long line of examples of the government failing to protect the rights of its citizens.

            1. They were idiots in the sense that the a guy who is summarily executed by a cop for saying "fuck you, pig" is an idiot.

              No, i don't think a police officer executing a prisoner is quite the right analogy at all.

              they got sued for publishing a video that anyone in their right mind would have known, "If we publish this, we will get sued".

              And when the inevitable lawsuit came, were they well-prepared presented a compelling casejury?

              No, they flippantly acted like they were immune from criticism. And when you are presenting a case that relies on a jury determining whether harm was caused? You don't act like you don't give a shit who gets hurt.

              the outcome is still a miscarriage of justice and another in a long line of examples of the government failing to protect the rights of its citizens.

              What "rights" were being violated here, exactly?

              This was a civil case decided by jury. The government didn't decide the case. What action would you have expected "the government" to have taken?

              1. And when the inevitable lawsuit came, were they well-prepared to present a compelling case to a jury?


              2. Damn, G.

                If I ever go back into the lawyer world, I am going to make you a jury consultant.

                $ to follow.

                1. Do i sound like i've drunk the "better call saul"-kool aid or something?

                  because i'm not really seeing any "libertarian legal angle" here at all that should compel me to feel that Gawker has ended up the innocent victim here.

                  i'm generally for tort-reform, and limiting the way people can use legal-process as a punishment... but when a guy like Hulk's only asset are things like royalties he collects from his likeness.... Gawker should have known that their action would be constituting a existential threat to his livelihood. as far as i'm concerned, they fucked themselves.

                  1. What's wrong with BCS?

                    1. i was referring to his general ethos -

                      Were you or a loved one or an acquaintance hurt, killed, upset, or inconvenienced by the tragedy of Wayfarer 515?

                      Better call Saul.

                      We've all suffered a tragedy. A terrible disaster has befallen each and every one of us. A hundred sixty-seven men, women, and yes, innocent children were lost, on the day Wayfarer 515 fell from the sky. At times like this, we ask ourselves deep questions: Is there a God? How could He let this happen? Who did this to me? 'Who can I sue? Did falling debris or body parts strike you, your home, your car, or your place of business? Did you or a loved one lose income opportunity now or in a potential future? Have you experienced nausea, vertigo, insomnia, '''survivor's guilt''', uncertainty, or simply confusion? Doctors are standing by to affirm your diagnosis. The tragedy is profound, pain is profound, and believe me: the settlement will be profound

                    2. Heh.

                    3. Bacon Cheese Sandwich?

                    4. No thanks. I had a giant corned beef on rye sandwich, pickles, olives, two pickled eggs and a schooner of Goose Island IPA at lunch. I'm still stuffed. Just sticking with a Jim Beam for right now. Maybe a bowl of cereal if I get hungry later.

                  2. All I know is that GILMORE penetrated to the heart of what most juries I have ever dealt with would think.

                    ATTENTION TRIAL COUNSEL - hire him. He will knock the shit out of your ears and set you straight.

                    1. oh, ok.

                      i grew up with a lawyer dad and a half-dozen lawyer relatives. almost none were career trial people, but the ethos of "reality is what you can convince a jury of" was imbued in me as a kid.

                      i also tend to treat every mild compliment as a highly complex insult. i'm still working on fixing that.

                    2. what, you too?? EVERYONES OUT TO GET ME

              3. they got sued for publishing a video that anyone in their right mind would have known, "If we publish this, we will get sued".

                If you just mean "get sued" then sure. This is America. You can get sued for anything. Lawsuits are one of our few economic sectors that reliably show growth each year.

                If you meant "get sued *successfully*" then common sense tells you nothing of the sort. The idea that a celebrity magically becomes "not a public figure" depending on his state of mind at the time is neither common sense nor, prior to this week, a part of the law.

                Nor do I expect it to remain part of the law.

                1. ah.

                  therefore no one trying to make money publishing sex tapes of other people fucking should ever expect to get sued.

                  You make a great case.

                  1. If you meant "get sued *successfully*" then common sense tells you nothing of the sort. The idea that a celebrity magically becomes "not a public figure" depending on his state of mind at the time is neither common sense nor, prior to this week, a part of the law.

                    So every action of 'a public figure' can be secretly recorded and published without consent thanks to freedom of the press? 'Cause I've got this awesome video of the President taking a whiz in the shower, see...

                2. The idea that a celebrity magically becomes "not a public figure" depending on his state of mind at the time is neither common sense nor, prior to this week, a part of the law.

                  Gawker is the same outfit that doxxed all the gun owners in NYC using the same stupid arguments for MUH FREE SPEECH. Like any self-respecting libertarian is going to defend them after that shit.

    2. "Was anyone on Gawker's side on this?"

      Dunno. Was there a good guy in this mess?

  8. Posting again, but this is the NYT article about the testimony from Gawker's former editor. I assume listening to this guy is what put the jury over the top.

    1. All of Gawkers employees were complete assholes in the depositions. And yes, they read those transcripts into the record at trial.

      If I were Gawker's lawyer, I would have required payment on a daily basis.

      1. Rule #1 - "Get the fee up front"

    2. "Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?" asked the lawyer, Douglas E. Mirell.

      "If they were a child," Mr. Daulerio replied.

      "Under what age?" the lawyer pressed.


      You have to admire his chutzpah

      1. Ok I thought it was funny, he can have a bullet when the revolution comes. Woodchippers for the rest.

      2. "You didn't really care, did you?" Mr. Mirell suggested.

        "No," Mr. Daulerio said.

        A moment later, after an objection from a lawyer for Gawker, Mr. Mirell persisted. "So it's fair to say that whether he suffered emotional distress or not, that played no part in your decision whether or what to publish," he said.

        "Correct," Mr. Daulerio replied."

        Yup. Little shits.

      3. Yeah.

        I'm sure their lawyers told them.

      4. *jury begins winding nooses*

    3. Ouch... former editor. So as per usual, fuck up the organization then leave.

        1. *throws thermite grenade back through door as he walks out*

    4. Oh yeah, those guys don't look like total douchbags.

  9. "f it is forced to pay the fine, Gawker will almost certainly have to shut down its operation, and that'll be a result of a decision against its right to engage in free expression and free press."

    And Clinton was impeached because he got a blowjob.

  10. I'm annoyed. There's a public school here considered among the best around. Since standards are high to get accepted not everyone gets in DESPITE it being public.

    Today she mentioned they got a new gymnasium.

    I mentioned to her the irony of public institutions being created ostensibly for equality yet here they are keeping students out even their parents (all taxpayers for that matter) are forced to pay school taxes. Moreover, since parents like to boast about how good the school is and how it rivals private schools, maybe they should have forked over the money for the gym.

    Cake and eating it is what I see.

    1. Well it's better than Death? Or Cake?

    2. Who the fuck is "she"? Your mistress?

      1. I erased the original and didn't edit. She being my mistress. Yes.

        1. *drunkenly staggers up to applaud*

        2. Meestress? 'Ow Fronch of yeww!

  11. I can't drink until April, but this helps make up for it.

    1. You're gonna stay thirsty my friend.

  12. Boy are the brackets busted up I reckon.

    I'm glad I sat this one out this year.

  13. Bubba the Love Sponge. Stay classy, Tampa!

    1. And keep it sticky players!

    2. I remember back in the day he would show up on Howard Stern once in a while and me thinking "this guy is not in Stern's league - and he's kind of scummy". Back when all the shock jocks were trying to out-shock Stern even though Stern would never have stooped to something this gross (though he might joke about them later).

      1. He was on WEBN in Cincinnati when I was a kid. Even as a 13-year-old, I thought he was juvenile.

        1. The Frog!

  14. I know I can use Google to find the criticisms against Gawker, and of course the sex tape thing is one of the criticisms, but can someone give me a few words about their entire operations - why they're unpopular here?

    I'm sure you'd express it more eloquently than anything I could Google.

    1. Dude, read this article from Deadspin, a Gawker website, after Rand Paul quite his campaign. It is the single most childish thing I have read all year, aside from his other take downs of failed Republican candidates. Imagine now that the entire website network's ethos are reflected in this.

  15. I still can't figure out how Hulk Hogan was awarded all that money for the economic damage to his reputation when the whole basis of his suit was that Terry Bollea was the one in the tape. If Terry Bollea was the one in the tape having his privacy invaded and therefore could sue as "not a public figure", he has no valuable public reputation to be harmed, does he? And what does the pain and suffering have to do with anything if it's a newsworthy story? I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer suffered a lot of pain and suffering over the news reports on his little escapades, but it's the news and the media has a right to broadcast it.

    1. Not being a gawker-hater (mostly since I hardly know what it is), I'm having a hard time working up sympathy for Hogan (since I know him only by news-osmosis).
      And WIH constitutes a libertarian hook here?

      1. Imagine ten slightly-different different versions of Salon with more snark and butthurt.

        1. ... and the occasional plea to the public when, having treated literally everyone like shit, they find themselves out of sources.

          They collect shitty journalist wannabe's like it's going out of style, they pay them based on page views, have zero integrity, and then encourage them to treat every human being that exists like shit. Gawker is literally everything wrong with mass media, concentrated and served up to the masses 47000 times daily.

    2. During the tape, he apparently talked with the woman, mentioning the N word a few times (IIRC, talking about his daughter's music career and to boost it, she needed to date some), which means he got fired and can't work anymore.

      And if you can't understand why someone shouldn't be able to record you having a private conversation with someone and then broadcast it all over the internet to that person's detriment, then well, I dunno what to say.

      1. "And if you can't understand why someone shouldn't be able to record you having a private conversation with someone and then broadcast it all over the internet to that person's detriment, then well, I dunno what to say."

        Yeah, but didn't he brag about porking her on national TV? Sorta presumes a lack of privacy right there.

      2. And if you can't understand why someone shouldn't be able to record you having a private conversation with someone and then broadcast it all over the internet to that person's detriment, then well, I dunno what to say.

        Ah, that explains it then - I didn't realize that the guy doing the recording was a Gawker employee.

  16. The jury will consider the amount for punitive damages Monday.

    Something no one else has remarked on.

    The jury went *beyond* the $100m sought by the plaintiffs for damages.

    This would suggest that there's an extra truckload of hurt making delivery on monday.

    1. I get the hate for Gawker, but in what possible universe do these awards make sense. In both this case and the Erin Andrews case the numbers being tossed out by the juries defy all reason. People get run over by delivery trucks and killed and their estate gets a tiny fraction of these numbers. Getting your leg cut off is worth far, far less than people seeing your privates, apparently.

      In what possible world does the Hulk being seen doing the nasty cause him 50 million dollars in economic harm, particularly at his age?

      Similarly, from what I can tell Erin Andrews career was not harmed in the slightest - yet the jury piled out a huge award for economic harm.

      1. to wit - a quick google search turned up this:

        "Juries award more for the living than the dead," said Robert Johnson, a forensic economist who has testified in numerous personal-injury cases for both defendants and plaintiffs. The manner of injury or death also counts, he said. "A burn victim gets more than an amputee. The idea is that [the amputation] only occurred once."

        People killed by Uncle Sam are also valued differently: When a warplane accidentally bombed a wedding party in Afghanistan, families of the 48 dead were paid $200 each, according to an ABC News report. In 1998, a Marine jet clipped a gondola's cable in the Italian Alps, sending 20 skiers to their deaths. Their families each received $2 million. And families of the 290 victims of the Iranian airliner shot down in 1988 by a U.S. warship got $300,000 for wage-earning victims and $150,000 for non-wage-earners.

        Conversely, the family of a GI killed in Iraq collects $250,000, tops, from the Service Group Life Insurance policy.

        And while servicemen max out at $250,000, the government has set up a payment grid for workers hurt on the job. Georgia Worker's Comp tables list an arm or leg maxing out at $95,625, an eye at $63,750 and a ring finger $12,750.

        I can say for my own personal preference - I'd let the whole world watch me bang some old lady once a week for the next year for a hundred million bucks. But I probably wouldn't give you my eye for any price.

        1. The SGLI was upped to $400,000 at least 10 years ago. You can "opt" for a smaller amount, but when it only comes out to less than $20/month, I'm not sure why anyone would.

      2. The WWE fired him as a result of some of the things that were on the tape. It's conceivable that his losses were actually that high.

        1. Good point.

  17. How long before there's a Downfall parody clip talking of Gawker and Hulk Hogan? ๐Ÿ˜‰

  18. Hulkamania ran wild on Gawker, brother!

  19. I've never understood how there is a right to post other people's sex tapes. You're violating their privacy.

    The other thing is, Gawker was given a court order to take the tape down, but they refused. They are lucky no one went to jail for that, judges often don't like being ignored like that.

    1. Perhaps a better question would be who in God's name would watch a Hulk Hogan sex video (other than Crusty).

      1. The large amount of people who, like me, watched the video, magically blesses the sex tape as "newsworthy," and therefore Gawker will win on appeal. Hopefully, they will be broke and out of business by the time that happens, because fuck those people, they do not care in any way about free speech.

        1. therefore Gawker will win on appeal

          I doubt it. The only way Gawker wins is if invasion of privacy laws are stricken from the books as unconstitutional, and that ain't gonna happen.

          The fact that Nick Denton will be ruined for life financially is just the cherry on top. As Napolean said:

          Cherchez la femmes

          No, that's not it (although its good advice), it was:

          Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres

  20. It is not a "Free" press. It costs $115 million.

      1. *assumes cha-CHING is racist. Outrageometer is pegged*

        1. 'Pegged'? Check your non-cis-anal something or other.

  21. Attention San Francisco area Reasonoids! We are planning a local meetup soon. Email me at my handle @gmail.com if you want to be notified.

  22. Finally an aggrieved class I can join.

    1. you obviously have sinister motives

      1. *tries to throw empty beer bottle at GILMORE, left handed....fails*

        1. ShammaliA'asar!

          1. Jesus, I was sure the arabs had a single word for = "i wave the hand that wipes my ass at you"

            1. Pfft! Like THAT hasn't been done at me before!

            2. How gauche.

    2. They will never get my Jewish privilege.

      1. Get with the pogrom!

        1. fucking autocorreicht.

    3. If any of these people were just trolling everyone else, how would you know?

    4. Seems like ambidextrous people would have all the privilege. They can easily work their mouse and their hard drive at the same time.

      1. Enough with these euphemisms!

    5. I taught myself how to write with my right hand sometime around junior high school. I should have just whinged about being oppressed instead.

    6. " "colorblindness and dismissal of a person's race is not a solution ? and in fact helps racism become more prevalent as this silences the issue of racism.""

      So he never wants to eliminate racism

    7. ""Don't try to silence a left-handed person who complains about scissors hurting their hand or how uncomfortable school desks are to sit in, or the struggle of having dirty hands from writing in pencil,""

      Asking them if they want any cheese with that whine is not silencing them. If I killed them or gagged them then yes, that would not be very nice.

      1. Just because we read left to right doesn't mean they have to write that way. Geez, do I have to think of everything?!

        1. Education really went downhill when we stopped reading and writing boustrophedon. If it was good enough for the Egyptians, Greeks, and ancient Latins, it's good enough for the people of America.

          1. Interesting. In the Yomiuri I've seen 3 articles on the same page of the newspaper where 1 goes left to right horizontally, one goes top to bottom and left to right and another goes top to bottom and right to left. Makes formatting a nightmare I'd imagine.

          2. Linguistics Rule 34 - any crazy shit you can imagine about speech or writing has been practiced somewhere at some time.

        2. We should take off our clothes and discuss this further.

  23. IRS wants to fuck with non-profits regarding "electioneering."


    1. Oh yeah, I'm sure that will be enforced equally.

  24. "The "government's instruction on the liquidation of?.the Greek Catholic Church [in Ukraine]," [communist official Georgii] Karpov crowed [in 1949], "has been carried out." The "Uniate Church" that "was subordinated to the Roman pope was liquidated by August of this year through its reunion with the Russian Orthodox Church."

    "The crucial moment in this calculated aggression, in which Russian Orthodoxy acted as a front for the brutal assault on a sister Church by an atheistic regime, came seventy years ago, on March 8-10, 1946, in Lviv, the principal city of western Ukraine....

    "...In the years between this notorious "Lviv Sobor" and Karpov's letter, the Soviet authorities completed the task of "liquidating" the institutions of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, destroying those of its churches, seminaries, and monasteries that were not "reunited" with Russian Orthodoxy. By the early 1950s, Ukrainian Greek Catholics were the largest underground religious community in the world, living an entirely clandestine existence.

    "And they survived as such, through extraordinary acts of courage and fidelity, until their Church re-emerged publicly in 1989. The "Lviv Sobor" was not an ecclesial act; it was a farce state-managed by the Soviet authorities, who saw in Ukraine's Greek Catholics a major obstacle to implementing two communist policies: state-sponsored atheism and the Russification of Ukraine."

    1. "Why is this anniversary worth noting?

      "First, Catholics throughout the world have a fraternal obligation to honor the memory of the many Greek Catholic martyrs who refused to accept the "Lviv Sobor," who stayed faithful to Rome, and who consequently paid the ultimate price."

        1. It's terrible what those commie assholes did to your Church and its members.

          So why is the current Pope a commie asshole?

          You're a member Edouard; fix it!

  25. The Chief Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a Clinton appointee, suddenly retired on Tuesday. Want to know why? Maybe it's because he's accused of raping the victim of a man he was prosecuting.

    1. Its a recovered memory case, and thus almost certainly false:

      The judge's emails and Franklin's death "triggered the beginning of the release of Mitchell's memories of her abuse by Roberts," the lawsuit claims.

    1. He was no Steve Bono, that's for sure.

    2. A northern man don't need him around anyhow...

    3. I will miss him on ESPN making faces at Ray Ray (or Stabby - whichever you prefer)

  26. More news from Brown(shirt) University:

    Jewish frat covered in anti-Semitic graffiti at Brown University.

    I'm sure Robby's article on this will include a boilerplate sentence about how Jewish frat boys have been known to graffiti buildings too.

      1. And, you know, it adds a bit more context to Robby's last story beyond "Oh, those crazy SJWs!"

    1. Must have been Trump supporters. Everyone knows they're the haters and fascists these days.

    2. A swastika at Brown, and it's not made of poop? What the hell, guys?

  27. Gawker is silent so far, but Hulkamania's runnin wild in the comments of their last article, ironically covering Trump's business failures.

  28. OK.
    "American Warlords: How Roosevelt's High Command Led America to Victory in World War II" (Jordon)
    Page-turner, focused on the Allied civilian and high military command efforts of WWII. Well written, but written by someone who adores FDR, tolerates Churchill and doesn't seem to have any notable problems with Stalin.
    Which is strange. He spends sentences here, there and everywhere, and then more, and then some more pointing out that FDR was a really rotten administrator whose major talent was convincing others that he was 'clever' and pointing out he only 'decided' on whimsy.
    And then spending the odd chapter applauding him for, uh, well, it's hard to tell.
    The battles are fought in other books; get this as the third or forth reference on the WWII Allied high command. But the guy is a GOOD writer; he mentioned that after an Allied meeting, nuke info went "two ways"; in a foot-note he noted it went "three ways" courtesy of Klaus Fuchs.
    Oh, and HM: Ordered this the other day
    I like Weatherford, but I'm not sure I missed another of your suggestions.

    1. I can't think if I suggested another book. Hope you enjoy the book about GK. Though it's funny to read descriptions of it as "revisionist" when it's really just the slightly less hyperbolic 'Yellow-Peril'-less take that is standard in Asian understandings of the time period.

    2. Sevo (or anyone else), can you recommend a good book on The Winter War?

      1. "The Winter War?"
        What mean?

        1. Finland v. Russia

          1. And yes, the Finland versus Russia war. Sevo apparently reads like a book a day, so I figured maybe he had come across one on this conflict, which I find to be very interesting.

            In addition to all of the military accomplishments, those Finnis both perfected then and named the Molotov cocktail, and created Larry Thorne.

            1. "Sevo apparently reads like a book a day, so I figured maybe he had come across one on this conflict, which I find to be very interesting."
              If business isn't intruding and the book is worth reading, figure a hundred pages a day and 'way more if it's a nice day for reading.
              That book on political dressing ( Dressing Constitutionally: Hierarchy, Sexuality, and Democracy from our Hairstyles to our Shoes ) got 15-20 pages/day and stickee notes hanging out the side by the ton.
              I'm looking forward to Weatherford on Ghengis Khan.

              1. I appreciate the recommendations.

          2. I'll take a look at the shelves, but this is a good start:
            A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II (Weinberg)
            "Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War" (Bellamy)
            This covered some of it:
            "Fall of Hitler's Fortress City: The Battle for K?nigsberg 1945" (Denny)
            Finally, I think this might be worth it:
            "Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin" (Snyder)
            Suffice to say, I don't have a specific reference, but I'd love to see what someone offers. There was a (claimed) Fin here, oh, 8 years ago griping about 'Bush the cowboy!'. I asked what the Fins would do if the bear growled again; no answer.

            1. Its rare for me to not finish a book, but I couldn't finish Bloodlands. It was just too horrifying. I was building up a lot of anger and hate at humanity, and I don't need that in my head.

      2. Crusty,

        I just read a book called The Hundred Day Winter War by Gordon F. Sander. It is a very good book and the latest and greatest on the subject.

  29. I wonder what would be the reaction, were different players involved; in place of gawker vs. Hogan, let's say it was a fox news blog vs. Denton, or a jezebel writer. How would the privacy vs. free speech angle play out, then? Or say that instead of Hogan, it was a different celebrity, say Matt Damon, Susan Sarandon, Bruce Willis, or Jessica Simpson. Would gawker have considered tapes of such people to be more or less newsworthy, and why? What difference would it make in the media, and in public opinion?

    Depending how you set things up, I imagine we could reasonably expect to have seen very different reactions, across the board.

    1. Except there couldn't be different players involved.

      Would Fox News ever post a sex tape?

  30. The basic verdict was the right one - no one should have his private parts displayed publicly without his consent, or even his knowledge. But $115 million? Those "damages" should be reduced by at least 99 percent.

    1. You're right. Its a ridiculous sum. I believe the judge has the authority to reduce damages in cases like this. We'll see.

  31. "You're balancing the right to make the speech versus privacy rights."

    Not even that. This isn't about injunctions or prior restraint. Any website is still allowed to post stolen sex tapes. They have just to pay the freight if they do. I would have said:

    "You are recognizing that the right to make the speech carries with it responsibility for any wrongful damage that the speech does."

  32. So... dogs to devour Jezebel's flesh soon?

    1. We can only pray

  33. A closed door is the equivalent of encryption. As crypto protects private data, a closed door protects private acts. Gawker acted in concert to break this. Thus no 1A protection can obtain. The fact that they are the even more soulless successors to TMZ is...well, just a way to make it easier to want to squish them.

  34. Just two (or more) groups of whores calling each other immoral. Actually it looks/sounds like the presidential campaigns.
    Great entertainment.

  35. Can't say I'm upset by this ruling either for Gawker or the potential effect it will have on the media. It's very simple: if you don't publish a celebrity sex tape, you don't have to worry about being sued for publishing a celebrity sex tape.

    Gawker wanted to toe the line of good taste and journalistic ethics, and they went too far...which is what happens when you toe the line.

  36. I for one am glad that when an aging, drooping fake wrestler wants to make a recording of him cuckolding his creepy friend by banging his ugly wife... that he can be secure that some second rate wesite can be sued out of business if they disemminate same unfortunate recording. Now can someone please tell us what The Trump is up to?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.