Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media The Courts

Hulk Hogan Settles With Gawker For $31 Million (go.com) 156

Gawker Media, which filed for bankruptcy after losing a lawsuit brought by the former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan, has settled the case. The settlement, which court documents indicate is for $31 million, comes less than eight months after a jury awarded Mr. Hogan $140 million in damages in an invasion of privacy case lawsuit over Gawker's publication of a video that showed Hogan having sex with a friend's wife. From a report on ABC: Settlement documents filed at a New York federal bankruptcy court stipulate that Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, will get $31 million plus share with other creditors 45 percent of any additional funds that come into the bankruptcy court by virtue of third-party claims brought by Gawker. Hogan's camp said in a statement: "After almost five years of litigation all parties agreed it was time to resolve this matter. This will allow people to go about their lives and concentrate on things more important than continued court proceedings. As in any case involving negotiation all parties give-and-take. We would like to thank everyone involved in the process." In a blog post on the settlement, Nick Denton, the founder of Gawker Media, wrote: "After four years of litigation funded by a billionaire with a grudge going back even further, a settlement has been reached. The saga is over."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hulk Hogan Settles With Gawker For $31 Million

Comments Filter:
  • Poor Nick Denton (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HBI ( 604924 ) on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @02:32PM (#53201275) Journal

    His company was destroyed because he ignored the law. Let's all feel sorry for him. I'm playing the world's smallest violin.

    A boil has been excised from the ass of humanity.

    • by aevan ( 903814 ) on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @02:40PM (#53201331)
      Hey now, Nick had standards! He went on record to state he would 'definitely not publish a sex tape of a four year old. Probably.'

      A pillar of the journalistic community has fallen. Now if only the rest of the rags in that collective of cybertrash would.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by KiloByte ( 825081 )

      His company was destroyed because he ignored the law. Let's all feel sorry for him.

      Well, let's see how ignoring the law works for, let's say, Clinton. Hmm... perhaps some animals are more equal than others?

      • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        Well, let's see how ignoring the law works for, let's say, Clinton. Hmm... perhaps some animals are more equal than others?

        Well that depends on who you Americans vote for in the next what? 7-8 days...doesn't it. Then again, if you elect Hillary, you could see the first women president impeached too.

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by lgw ( 121541 )

          Well that depends on who you Americans vote for in the next what? 7-8 days...doesn't it. Then again, if you elect Hillary, you could see the first women president impeached too.

          80% of "Democrats" and "Republicans" are just the Establishment Party, agreeing on the fundamental principle of taking bribes to funnel taxpayer money in return. Oh, they put on a show about stuff they don't care about at all, like gay marriage (where's the money in that?), but they agree on everything "important".

          An angry 20% will never impeach anyone.

          • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

            Then you're probably better off voting for the non-establishment candidate, that has pissed everyone off aren't you? And hope he leans on the FBI and gets rid of the corruption at the top of the DOJ so that indictments can be put into place.

            • by lgw ( 121541 )

              Oh, I agree. I think the US has a limited number of years left to get a credible non-establishment foothold in government before less appealing options than democracy start unfolding. I don't think it will be Trump, but his supporters aren't going anywhere, and I'm hopeful we'll see less crazy non-establishment candidates in coming election years.

              • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

                I'm hopeful we'll see less crazy non-establishment candidates in coming election years.

                This thing has been building in the US for at least a decade now. The previous non-establishment candidate you guys had was Ron Paul and all his crazy, with the BS being pushed by the elites? Trump is probably the least extreme candidate you're going to see. It's only downhill from there, if you need a primer or example? Look at the state of Europe with the rise of actual fascist parties again, and said parties gaining because the left and establishment are either attacking them--or saying "things reall

          • by lgw ( 121541 )

            WTF is with /. mods these days? Pointing out the US government is pretty darn corrupt is "trolling" now? Really?

      • by Kkloe ( 2751395 )
        Well yes, any other questions?
      • I don't know. Name a time Clinton deliberately ignored the law and we'll talk.

        You know what would happen if you were negligent and let classified data out? You'd have a good chance of losing your clearance, perhaps temporarily. You could lose your job. Your annual review probably will not be pleasant. You won't get prosecuted.

        • You're assuming negligence where malice is obvious. She did it to hide her illegal actions from possible prosecution. The US isn't Russia, yet -- she can't assassinate, spy on and otherwise abuse government agencies against her political opponents in the open yet. She does deeply envy Putin, though, and does everything she can do turn most of the western world into a Russia-like hellhole. Her and her buddies' tentacles reach far beyond borders of the US.

          Her opponent is merely an incompetent buffoon, qui

          • In other words, you're constructing cloud castle indictments in your mind. You are assuming you know her motives, and apparently that she deliberately set things up to leave classified documents on her server, which is ludicrous. She hasn't assassinated anyone; she's just known a lot of people who have died of various causes. I haven't heard anything serious about the State Department spying on people, and the only serious abuse of government power I've seen has been Comey's against her.

            Having devoted

            • much of Trump's rhetoric is similar to Hitler's

              Newsflash: it's not Trump who's acts like Hitler.

              • Not from where I sit. Trump pushes an irrational ideology, with lack of specifics, extreme nationalism, and vilification of identifiable minority groups. Clinton doesn't do that.

    • Uh, they posted a video of an event that occurred and was factual. That's not defamation, libel, or slander; it's reporting on the life of public figures. It's long-established that being a public person cuts away a substantial amount of your privacy protection. What laws were broken?

      A Florida Jury found that Gawker violated Hulk Hogan's privacy. Other juries and judges have determined that public figures's privacy can't be violated in that way in many situations. Unless Gawker produced the tape (in

      • Re:Poor Nick Denton (Score:4, Informative)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <(slashdot) (at) (worf.net)> on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @05:03PM (#53202255)

        Uh, they posted a video of an event that occurred and was factual. That's not defamation, libel, or slander; it's reporting on the life of public figures. It's long-established that being a public person cuts away a substantial amount of your privacy protection. What laws were broken?

        A Florida Jury found that Gawker violated Hulk Hogan's privacy. Other juries and judges have determined that public figures's privacy can't be violated in that way in many situations. Unless Gawker produced the tape (including hiring someone to have it made, thus invading privacy), it's been long-established that this is simply public gossip about a public figure: a tape was made by Clem (husband of the chick Hogan banged), Clem gave it to Gawker, Gawker published it after Hogan's divorce.

        By early 2012, rumors began circulating âoein the radio community about a sex tape starring Hogan and Heather Clem,â Peirce said in his deposition.

        A month later, still images from the tape appeared on the website The Dirty â" and Bubba now recognized the canopy bed as his own and knew it was his tape.

        In the fall of 2012, Gawkerâ(TM)s then editor, A.J. Daulerio, received a phone call from Tony Burton, a lawyer who claimed a client of his was interested in mailing him something. A package arrived at the Gawker offices between Sept. 27 and Oct. 4, 2012. There was no return address. Daulerio was on vacation at the time, so the siteâ(TM)s then-managing editor, Emma Carmichael, opened the package and watched the recording inside â" it was the sex tape.

        So the sex tape was already a matter of public gossip, some stills were out there, someone sent it to Gawker, Gawker published it. Also Hogan had denied that he would ever bang Heather several times--he liked to talk publicly about his sex life.

        Hogan made his affair with Heather Clem a public matter. He talked around it, he talked about his sex life in general, he pointed out that she was hot but claimed he wouldn't get on her because she's another dude's wife, and so forth. "Turns out you fucked her brains out!" is actually reasonable information to publish, and somehow that sex tape got made and got floated around.

        It's a thin case for you and me; and it's a completely-different ballgame for someone famous who's baited the public interest.

        Not really.

        You ignored one simple fact - Gawker was ordered to take down the video. They said they won't [twitter.com].

        Sure the tape may be factual evidence, but when a judge orders you to take it down during your lawsuit, you take it down.

        It doesn't matter who's right or wrong in the matter - the judge said to do it, so you do it to avoid the wrath of the judge.

        In fact, this one act of defiance likely is what brought the damages up. Gawker got away pretty light - the judge could've found them in contempt and instead all they got was enhanced damages.

        • Oh, I didn't catch that Gawker disobeyed a prior court order.

      • by arth1 ( 260657 )

        A Florida Jury found that Gawker violated Hulk Hogan's privacy. Other juries and judges have determined that public figures's privacy can't be violated in that way in many situations.

        I don't think any juries and judges have ever considered having sex in private as one of those "many situations".

        • There have been a lot of private naked-photos and celebrity sex tape leaks; and we get to hear all kinds of gossip without pictures, like when Bill Clinton got a blowjob. If the press found out Angelina Jolie was cougaring up a college football team, they'd have it on the front page of everything that would print it--and it would just be "news" (well, what passes for news), and not "invasion of privacy".
          • There's been a lot of leaked nude photos and sex tapes, but that doesn't mean they were legal. Also, there's a difference between a juicy report of Jolie and the team and a video of the activity in the locker room.

            • The report, published as news, of a non-celebrity would be an invasion of privacy. Also, is it an invasion of privacy when a well-known video already being circulated is in question? You've already lost control of that.

              Someone suggested it'd be copyright at best. They're probably right.

      • You seem to miss the point that we are talking about a sex tape here.

        Reporting about public figures only matters for public events, not for their private live or their sex life.

        Perhaps you should reread your court rulings very carefully to understand the difference.

        • Reporting about public figures is a constant. Have you never been to a supermarket? Magazine covers are full of gossip about who cheated on who, who has a secret sex-party life, who is getting a divorce, and whatnot. If the Olsen Twins get drunk and take turns screwing three guys at a party, the press will have it on ABC, CNN, and Fox News the next day, if they can get an interview with anyone at the party. They'll even publish someone's cellphone recording of the girls walking off into the back room w

          • Does mot make it leagal when the photos or phone records are aquired by illegal means ...
            And no, I don't read those magazines ... I'm to concerned about my next hardware I want to acquire :)

            • Actually, once someone has published something not claimed as a copyrighted creative work, it's no longer private and no longer acquired by illegal means. It must be an illegal video (child pornography) after that point.

              Before Gawker received the video, it was already circulating without the authorization of Hogan and Clem. Gawker put it into wider circulation, which is technically the same thing as what anyone who distributes anything at any point ever is doing; however, there is an argument that Gawk

              • Actually, once someone has published something not claimed as a copyrighted creative work, it's no longer private and no longer acquired by illegal means.
                That is nonsense. Publishing does not remove copyrights. Otherwise every movie in the theaters had no copyright and all about the DMCA etc. would be mood.

                • Laura Schlessinger sued for copyright infringement and privacy invasion when her boyfriend sold her nudes to a porn site in 1998. He had a judge preside over that trial. The judge told her copyright infringement doesn't work and she's a public figure and doesn't get that kind of privacy protection.

                  Gawker published Hulk Hoagan's naked sex video in 2015, and then got sued. The idiot lawyer requested a jury trial, and the plaintiff cried crocodile tears for sympathy.

                  Do you see this post? I'm publishing

                  • Laura Schlessinger sued for copyright infringement and privacy invasion when her boyfriend sold her nudes to a porn site in 1998. He had a judge preside over that trial. The judge told her copyright infringement doesn't work and she's a public figure and doesn't get that kind of privacy protection.
                    Then the judge was wrong.

                    Of course she could not sue on copyright issues, as obviously the BF made the movie so most of it was copyrighted by him. However as a participant (regardless if voluntarily or not) she al

                    • Well it's been determined and upheld that public figures have less of a claim to privacy because everybody is trying to get in on their private life. You seem to not like this, but legally you're wrong.

                      Of course it is protected by copyright. You can cite it, but not copy it. And if you are referring to /. I suggest to scroll down the page and read what is written in the lower right corner.

                      Do you mean the part where I said, "Slashdot posts at the bottom: 'Comments owned by the poster'"? Yes, I said that in my last message. Read it again.

                      I also said you will lose any copyright case in any court attempting to claim copyright infringement on comments you made in a public forum. If I copy a

                    • also said you will lose any copyright case in any court attempting to claim copyright infringement on comments you made in a public forum.
                      And you are wrong with that.

                      I might lose in some obscure court in the US. But definitely not in all of them and absolutely not in any European court.

                      Your comments here are non-copyrightable for the same reason everything you say is non-copyrightable

                      I suggest to simply read the copyright law. Facepalm. It is obvious that everything I write is copyrighted. You must be abs

                    • Here's the thing: comments on a forum have never been successfully defended in U.S. courts. Speeches--being the creative work of a speechwriter--have been defended; but the USCO has determined speeches given but not written down aren't copyrightable because they aren't a fixed work--even though those speeches are recorded through the incident of being at a public event. The recording is copyrighted--to whoever owned the camera (e.g. CBS); the speech wasn't prepared and fixated, so isn't copyrighted.

                      We

                    • In most parts of the world, courts are irrelevant for simple matters like this. The law is relevant.
                      And regarding copyright or Urheberrecht (in german) all my posts are under (my) copyright, and so is anything I do with my mind and express with my mouth, body, fingers or any tool at hand.
                      It does mot matter if it is in a discussion, and your way to bring this topic forward makes no sense to me. But perhaps you are right in your judisdiction, I pitty you then.

                    • America has the concept of case law, in which we determine what the law was supposed to do, and whether it makes sense in context. That's why we have things like the reasonable person test, and why we might identify that "conversation is not copyrightable" and "conversation is only possible via written word in this context" would lead a court to decide that said written word is not copyright, while also pointing to a poem in the middle of said written word and claiming that is a creative work and is thus c

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @02:35PM (#53201291)

    Jennifer Lawrence pics = BAD AND EVERYONE WHO LOOKED AT THEM SHOULD FEEL BAD. Hulk's sex tape = FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

    Live by the douchebag, die by the douchebag. And this big ball of dirt keeps on spinning.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The guy got off lightly. In some places publishing video of people having sex without their consent is a crime.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @02:35PM (#53201293)

    It's a sad, sad day for media outlets, and journalism in general.

    How can we exist as a democracy when the public isn't going to be allowed to see stolen sex tapes of washed up celebrities? This is going to have a chilling effect on news outlets everwhere.

    Think of all the sex tapes hidden from the public of washed up celebrities that will now never come to light because of this censorship! There could be sex tapes of Charo giving a blowjob to John Davidson stolen by Danny Bonaduce, and we'll never see them! It's shocking, shocking I say! There could be a sex tape of Corrie Haim giving a reacharound to Corey Feldman! A double Correy sex tape, and we may never see it! How will modern journalism, nay democracy survive!

    • You missed their brilliant expose that Donald Trump's hair was probably an absurdly expensive, shitty looking weave.

      Anyway, I get it, we should wait to cry foul when a real, respectable news organization gets taken down by a billionaire with a grudge. Just so we're clear, which news organizations are the good guys? I want to be ready, so I'll need a list of the good ones.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        You can start with the ones that don't publish stolen sex tapes

      • We can start by saying the ones that publish sex tapes without permission are not the good guys, and deal with other cases as they arise. Thiel was helping someone who had a legitimate grievance against Gawker get justice. It's not like he filed a bunch of illegitimate lawsuits to try to bankrupt them with legal fees.
        • Your sig points out "nobody is always right." I suspect that every single news organization of any decent caliber, that has been around for much time, has people who think they have legitimate grievances. All of them seem to be made up of people, and in my experience, all people make mistakes.

          I'm not sure what the best way to resolve Hogan's fair complaint with making sure news organizations don't get shut down, but that WAS Thiel's stated goal here, if I'm not mistaken, was to shut down Gawker.

          The W
          • Your sig points out "nobody is always right." I suspect that every single news organization of any decent caliber, that has been around for much time, has people who think they have legitimate grievances. All of them seem to be made up of people, and in my experience, all people make mistakes.

            I agree with this so far.

            I'm not sure what the best way to resolve Hogan's fair complaint with making sure news organizations don't get shut down, but that WAS Thiel's stated goal here, if I'm not mistaken, was to shut down Gawker.

            Here's the thing: Thiel apparently did want to destroy Gawker, you're right. However, it wouldn't have been possible for him to do so if they weren't making more than their fair share of mistakes. They might not have had to file for bankruptcy if they had taken the trial seriously from the start - Nick Denton's (allegedly flippant) comment about probably not publishing the sex tape of a four year old [nytimes.com] didn't do them any favors, and neither did refusing the initial order to take the t

          • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

            The Washington Post published Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative, ending her career. To me that's more serious an offense than leaking a sex tape.

            Gawker would not have gotten into much trouble if they'd just reported that Hogan had extra-marital sex. That would be the analogy to Valerie Plame.
            But Gawker published the tape. And then they refused a court order afterwards. I don't think there's really any parallel to the Valerie Plame case in that situation.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Anyway, I get it, we should wait to cry foul when a real, respectable news organization gets taken down by a billionaire with a grudge. Just so we're clear, which news organizations are the good guys? I want to be ready, so I'll need a list of the good ones.

        It doesn't matter whether they're 'good' or 'bad'. If they act the same way then they should be treated accordingly. If the BBC had posted the Hogan sex tape instead then absolutely they should be paying the damages. Is this really that confusing for you?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    after reading this, is Terry Bollea. The fucker cheats on his own wife and that of his friend, then plays the victim to the tune of $140 million, as if that would be a fair amount of the DAMAGES CAUSED TO HIM. Money-greedy petty fucking Americans.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      He is just a well payed pawn in this.

      If your Business is pissing off people rich enough to sue you out of business, Be careful who you Piss off.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        In a just society the little people gawker bullied, fucked over and broke the law exposing (like a college student sec tape she begged to have taken down) would have shut this company down years ago. The sad thing is a bigger billonaire bully had to be annoyed before justice could be done against the mere millionaire gawker assholes who repeatedly broke the law and caused misery to line their pockets.

    • His friend was fine with it; it was an open marriage. I don't think Bollea's wife was okay with it, but I still have less respect for Gawker than I do for him.

      The $140M wasn't just because of damages caused to him (although it did hurt his career, and he was well-paid at one point); it was also because Gawker refused a judge's order to take down the tape. Punitive damages are a thing, and judges tend to get mad when you don't listen to them.
  • Millionaires (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Princeofcups ( 150855 ) <john@princeofcups.com> on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @02:39PM (#53201321) Homepage

    A millionaire sued another millionaire and millions changed hands. Everyone is scum in this situation. Plaintiff, defendant, and lawyers. Just an average day in America.

  • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @02:48PM (#53201373) Journal

    Who invented email? This settlement includes $750,000 to Shiva Ayyadurai and removal of the article that debunks his claim that he invented email.

    Does anyone think that part of the settlement is justified by anything except Thiel's money?

    • Tomlinson.. [nethistory.info] I was using rudimentary store/forward e-mail in 1976..
      Don't however confuse that to a lawyer making an obtuse argument of invention to get money. I would have argued that since e-mail is a concept and not a product that it's not subject to ownership but maybe copyright.

    • Francis Ronalds, 1816. First practical telegraph.

      It may not be email in the way we use it today, but it is a text message transmitted electronically to destination address specified in the message header, and that sounds like email to me.

    • Who invented email? This settlement includes $750,000 to Shiva Ayyadurai and removal of the article that debunks his claim that he invented email.

      That part is missing in the article linked, but is in other articles on the settlement:
      http://nordic.businessinsider.com/gawker-settles-with-hulk-hogan-2016-11/
      https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161102/10054035947/ridiculous-nick-denton-settles-remaining-charles-harder-lawsuits-agrees-to-delete-perfectly-true-stories.shtml
      https://nickdenton.org/a-hard-peace-e161e19bfa
      http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/11/gawker-reaches-settlement-with-hulk-hogan-004844

  • Good (Score:2, Informative)

    by kuzb ( 724081 )
    Seriously, fuck Nick Denton, and fuck Gawker. The only way it could have turned out better is if Hogan ended the court case with a leg drop. Peter Thiel is a hero for helping to take out this tabloid that insisted on masquerading as a legitimate news agency.
  • Hogan: How much ya got?
    Denton: 31 million dollars
    Hogan: I'll take it, brother!

  • justice? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by srw ( 38421 ) on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @05:38PM (#53202413) Homepage
    It's a sad state of affairs when you need a billionaire with a grudge backing you to get any justice.
  • I was listening to the radio yesterday and they were talking about Peter Thiel paying for some of Hogan's legal fees because "even as a single-digit millionaire, Hulk Hogan does not have adequate access to the legal system." Hulk Hogan may have been unsuccessful in his litigation because his pockets, his deep pockets, still weren't deep enough to get damages he deserved.

    And fuck Gawker. Good damn riddance. If you make enough enemies, they will pool their resources and bring you down. But the only people

  • It wasn't about the sex tape where he fucked the wife of another man while the man filmed, it was about his racist comments which came out afterward.

Just go with the flow control, roll with the crunches, and, when you get a prompt, type like hell.

Working...