Good afternoon, ladies and germs. I’m back for another evening of muckraking and news re-posting here on TheRalphRetort.com. Let’s leadoff with some comments from the Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker jury. Up until yesterday, only one of them has spoken to the press. But that all changed with today’s Good Morning America on ABC. They had all six jurors on and they spoke openly and honestly. The biggest takeaway is that they are all very happy with their decision in the case.
In an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Linzie Janis that aired Thursday on “Good Morning America,” the jurors — Paula Eastman, Robin Young, Shane O’Neil, Salina Stevens, Kevin Kennedy and Shelby Adkins — said they all believed Gawker broke the law.
“There’s absolutely no doubt that the decision we made was absolutely correct,” O’Neil said…
“As human beings, we collectively said, you know … if we were all in the same circumstances, how would we feel about it, and, emotionally, we would have all been really devastated,” Eastman said of the video’s release.
Asked whether Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, deserved less privacy because he is a celebrity, Adkins said: “No, he’s still a human being just like everyone else, no matter how many people know his name and his face.”
Asked whether any of them thought Hogan may have been responsible for setting up the recording, Kennedy said, “Even if he knew he was being recorded, there’s still no right to put that out there if he doesn’t want it put out.”
The jurors told Janis when they watched the nearly two-minute excerpt of the tape during deliberations, they all felt it was clear Hogan did not know he was being filmed.
“He didn’t know that there was a video going on,” Young said.
“Definitely not,” O’Neil concurred.
Gawker argued that the website’s post with the video was newsworthy under the First Amendment, which protects journalists.
“They did something illegal,” Young claimed, referring to Gawker.
“If Hulk Hogan and his lawyers had asked them to take the post down and the verbage, it would have been a First Amendment issue,” Eastman said. “We would have sided with Gawker, for sure, but it just wasn’t the case.”
“They asked him to take the video down which was a privacy act,” she said. “It was very clear to me.”
Added O’Neil: “Gawker made it clear to everyone … that they were all about crossing the line.”
Well, yea. That’s pretty much the entire Gawker business model, especially back in 2012. Here’s the actual video, in case you want to view their interview for yourselves…
They don’t seem to have any doubt that they did the right thing. We’ll see if this verdict holds up on appeal, but either way, they have struck a massive blow for justice in the media. Posting someone’s sex tape has nothing to do with a free press and everything to do with the shame culture that Gawker helped establish. Nick Denton and his thugs can cry all they want, but the public, represented by these 6 jurors, have had enough of their bullshit.
8 comments
6 normal people talking about how such media decisions can affect lives. The system at its finest.
and then denton goes on camera and prattles about the news worthiness of the story rather than addressing the matter of the video which is the reason for the entire event.
i wish that this will be the deathknell for gawker. (but knowing the tenacity of parasites and cockroaches i think it will cling to life and scurry around)
Denton and crew argue that the Fappening was about privacy and off limits yet something far more intimate than mere nudity isnt. When you also consider that many of the actresses and models have appeared nude or topless in films and photos as well, their logic grows thinner. And when you apply their lame standard that because Hogan talked about his sex life publicly as a factor that it then makes it fair game, while claimng NONE of the Fappening ladies didnt, it gets razor thin. Plenty of those gals have publicly discussed their sex lives and most have promoted themselves if not as outright sex symbols, they have at least branded themselves sexy and desirable. Mind you, this doesnt mean they deserved their nudes leaked anymore than Hogan did. Im merely pointing out the holes in Denton and Gawker’s false distinctions.
These mental gymnastics they are trying to pull off are purely motivated by their SJW tendencies. Nudes of prominent famous females? ENGAGE WHITE-KNIGHTING FOR MILADY! Sex tape of prominent famous white male wrestler with primarily blue collar fans? POST THAT SHIT IMMEDIATELY AND RIDICULE WITH VITRIOL! (the female in the vid is an acceptable casualty to them as their main target is what they thirsted to hit)
Even if the main payouts from gawker get reduced, I hope the personal judgements against Denton and his pet toilet-sniffer AJ stand.
Fuck those assholes.
“private things” include top secret information by whistleblowers.
The press has not been even bothered by the war on whistleblowers, although Government is different from a private citizen.
Think of this as Whistle-Blowback.
If a prez was giving out launch codes during swz, sure, list it.
“If Hulk Hogan and his lawyers had asked them to take the post down and the verbage, it would have been a First Amendment issue,” Eastman said. “We would have sided with Gawker, for sure, but it just wasn’t the case.”
“They asked him to take the video down which was a privacy act,” she said. “It was very clear to me.”
I don’t get it.
Hulk and his lawyer did ask gawker to take down the video, but gawker refused. So whats the difference?
They didn’t ask them to take the post down just the video. That is the issue. The video was an invasion of privacy, talking/writing about it was not.