hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

i mean, it's fine, but it's no imdb or pornhub.

it makes me laugh \o/

i mean admittedly my interest kinda waxes and wanes thru time as editors writers etc come and go, and is at a low pt right now. but still

lol for some reason ian's comment reminded me of https://twitter.com/leyawn/status/710825751336120320

http://gawker.com/the-hogan-verdict-1766460791

The plaintiff’s lawyers, with the occasional assist from our witnesses, successfully painted Gawker as representative of an untrammeled internet that good and decent people should find frightening and distasteful.

zing

interesting choice to put the hulkamania over lady justice's eyes in the graphic as if to say that hulk blinded her when the blindness of justice is a feature not a bug. not that it means anything except maybe some confusion over the iconography.

lady justice on the ground with hulkster doing the big leg drop would've been more apropos

i do think the appeal could go gawker's way, if much of what denton says in the post is true (i haven't been following this superclosely so probably much of it has already been discussed here and elsewhere). but stuff like this is just hilariously irrelevant:

Back in 2012, to the largely young and metropolitan audience of Gawker, and to those who found the story through news reports and search engines, the post was not particularly offensive. It was their choice to click on the headline and the play button.

iirc the only thing posted was a text description of the contents of the tape and a short excerpt

i'm no attorney but if they pay the full amount they are cool with posting the whole video right

i read somewhere that they have to post $50 million bail to appeal?

my takeaway from this whole thing is that gawker hired some really bad lawyers

And writers

http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/features/why-the-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-verdict-matters-20160322?page=2

i read somewhere that they have to post $50 million bail to appeal?

Yep. Even if the damages are wiped, this is a killer.

don't really understand the intricacies of these cases but...what? they have to pony up 50 million nonrefundable to get the appeal heard? that doesnt sound right

i'm trying to google more information and i think i have no clue what the $50 million is supposed to be or function it's supposed to fulfill. one website says that they can pay $50 million and get an automatic stay on the judgement. so maybe that's what i had seen before?

that seems... extortionist.

http://recode.net/2016/03/21/jury-adds-25-million-in-punitive-damages-to-the-115-million-gawker-hogan-sex-tape-verdict/

This final ruling from the jury effectively marks the conclusion of stage one in the legal fight between the former professional wrestler and Gawker. Next, the company’s legal team will have to persuade Judge Pamela Campbell* to either release them from or greatly reduce the bond that Gawker would have to post before proceeding with its appeal. The bond is where things could start to get tricky for Gawker.

The bond amount could be up to $50 million, depending on what the judge rules. In court, Gawker’s lawyers said that the company is worth $83 million. Denton (who owns a controlling stake in Gawker Media) is worth $121 million, and Daulerio “has no assets but owes $27,000 in student loans.”

Denton told the New York Times last summer that Gawker doesn’t keep that kind of cash sitting around, but that doesn’t mean Gawker is totally screwed. If Judge Campbell forces the company to pay $50 million (or a similarly high amount) up front, then the company plans to take its case to the Second District Court of Appeals, which has already reversed some of Campbell’s decisions.

nick denton just posted a response to the verdict

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/30XERL7kkimpLC1PWM8vlIpUgVejk6oUc9gJKP1_VFXv0i56zc_hmlz41CCmrBqCoOTLzD3jVa9UTYeUIkHUDnXlbVg=s641

appeal bond is to guard against the loser running out of assets/going bankrupt/leaving the country, etc. while appeal is pending. or prevents frivolous appeals. not sure but i think you can have an insurer pay it, doesn't sound like gawker has the assets to even get that to happen though.

it's refundable if they win though

ty harbs

hulk hogan wanted me to represent him but i was busy

that recode post basically has it. florida requires a bond be paid up to a maximum of $50 million before appeal. gawker is gonna ask the trial judge for a stay against paying that amount, if that's denied then they will ask the appeals court for the same stay. once that's decided then the appeal of the verdict begins in earnest.

with verdicts like this plus an exciting trump presidency

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/22/the-injunction-is-back-entertainer-blocks-extramarital-affair-story

you've got that to look forward to

gawker was always going to die on the dumbest hill imaginable, but giving hulk hogan 115 million dollars in compensatory damages is a war crime

What would you suggest is fair recompense for tarnishing the sterling reputation of such an upstanding public figure?

a cage match between denton and hulk, with all proceeds going to the hulkster

denton has to call all his employees "brother" for a year

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IZ2Iv0OckM

The only video about this case you ever need to watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50eTEM63XUM&feature=youtu.be

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-stakes-in-hulk-hogans-gawker-lawsuit

it makes sense that hulkamania is trying to make america great again by doing away with gawker

the strangest takeaway from that new yorker piece for me:

(The New Yorker is represented by the same firm that represents Gawker)

I bet they're being a little more careful now.

New Yorker being sued for describing an expression on Maria Abramovic's face in a little too finely wrought detail.

borowitz's emotional damages are simply incalculable

http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/borowitz-670.png

can someone shop this onto osama thumbs up

I am sure there's a long german word for the particular brand of disgust I feel when I see a link to a borowitz article

that article written by the NYer's general counsel was really good, i really can't see how they lose this appeal

Would we be worse off if no one were willing to publish such a video? You don’t have to be a First Amendment absolutist, in favor of the unlimited publication of sex tapes, to believe that we would.

lol

The one thing I found odd about that piece is that he uses the term "public interest" throughout it in the sense of "something the public is interested in." I'm no lawyer so I could be way off, but I was under the impression that in legal terms "public interest" means something related to the general welfare of the public, not something a lot of people are curious about. I think it'd be a lot harder to argue that the video serves the public interest under that definition.

i think it can mean both but it can be a cute rhetorical trick to talk about "the public interest" which def implies public welfare when you mean just titillating shit that gets the public's rocks off

God help us if theres a war, and so on.

the ol' deadspin-jezebel switcheroo, i like it

surprised no one bumped this thread for this the other day: http://www.law360.com/media/articles/777787

Gawker Escapes Unpaid Intern FLSA Suit

A New York federal judge on Tuesday tossed a proposed class action accusing Gawker Media LLC of not paying interns in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, saying the experience the interns gained outweighed the benefits the internship program provided the digital media company.

saying the experience the interns gained outweighed the benefits the internship program provided the digital media company.

grim