https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pr8S44o6N4&feature=youtu.be&t=261
>You were joking about child pornography, were you not?
>...I was sarcastic.
>my deposition is wrong
>did you fill out the errata sheet?
>It's a smirk, yeah
>you don't think the first amendment is very serious, do you?
Is that some Gawker stooge on the podium?
>>67231243
It's the founder of Gawker.
>>67231094
>joking during the deposition
what a dumbass
>mfw Hulk Hogan gets to seize all their assets after they declare bankruptcy
>>67231398
does he have to give any of it to his wife?
>>67231094
str8 from reddit I see.
kill yourself, fucking faggot.
>>67231555
What are you talking about?
>>67231555
how would you know that unless you were on reddit?
>>67231525
>Cuck Hogan gest JUSTed by his wife
>SJW get JUSTed by Cuck Hogan
Does it rhyme?
>>67231094
I can't wait for Gawker to shut down. Buzzfeed is next!
>>67231398
Too bad they're going to win the appeal and you understand nothing about law.
>>67231739
>Too bad they're going to win the appeal and you understand nothing about law.
ok redditer they have to post a bail of $15 million to at least to appeal but tell me how you know about law you dumbshit
>>67231855
50 million actually
>>67231739
Expect they have nothing that can prove they didn't have intent on causing harm to Hogan.
>>67231094
>dude is literally squirming on the stand
holy lel
>>67231923
That's no where near as harmful to Hogan as the photos where he's greasing up and feeling up his daughter Brooke.
>>67231739
that's not how law works goy. defendants proven of libel and violation of First Amendment as a defendant gives them no recourse. Gawker is done.
>>67231739
>going to win the appeal
Heh, unlikely. Not when Gawker testified that a 5-year-old celebrity sex tape would be newsworthy.
They said this shit was an open and shut case before it even started. Gawker can't do anything but delay the inevitable. It's pathetic.
>>67231947
Typical jew, can't stand the heat.
>>67231739
In most cases that might be true, but they likely want to set a clear precedent with this case. Defying court orders and making a mockery of due process is not something they take lightly.
>>67232015
When did that happen? Pics
>>67232127
kill yourself
what's the story here
yes I'm lazy
>What's an errata sheet?
So who made the secret video recording?
>Lawyer: In your deposition you told a joke.
>Gawker: Yes.
>Lawyer: So, you were joking?
>Gawker: ...
>Lawyer: You just said you were joking in your deposition. Would you like your own testimony read back to you?
>Gawker: ...You can read it back, sure.
When the hell do you own up to anything?? I have never been deposed before but shit, if I was testifying in a $100 million trial I wouldn't sweat the small stuff.
>>67231268
no it isn't
Was he born into a wealthy family or something?
He is so astronomically unaware of his actions having consequences that I really question how else he could end up so unaware of the seriousness of the discussion- in a fucking COURTROOM.
I can only picture a spoiled brat that could do anything he wanted because daddy had connections.
It may not be permanent, but as of right now, this little worm got his; that's almost enough for me.
I hope he loses a thousand times and more.
Hulk will be lucky to see 1/8th, even 1/16th of that money. You really think Gawker will just give him the money? No. Once more of the public finds out about this insane amount he's asking for and see all the facts for what they are, the number will get lowered. Or the case will be dropped altogether.
>>67232428
>Gawker gets a court order to take down a video
>lol no
Gawker are getting buttfucked on that alone. You don't just ignore a court order and not get fucked over
>>67232428
Hulk won't be getting all of it due to lawyer fees and taxes, but Gawker is likely going to be paying a lot of money.
>Gawker gets a hold of Hulk Hogan sex tape
>Gawker claims sole ownership of the tape and shames other media outlets for hosting it
>Hogan and his lawyer get a court order demanding Gawker remove the tape
>Gawker refuses to obey A COURT ORDER
>multi-million dollar lawsuit is filed
>Gawker stops hosting the tape
>someone "leaks" more footage of the tape of Hogan saying racist shit
(gee I wonder who did that considering Gawker claimed sole ownership of the footage)
>Hogan loses some deal with the WWF, they Pete Rose his ass and refuse to acknowledge he ever existed
>Hogan wins trial, takes $115 million in damages, will be taking even more in punitive damages later
>>67232340
Gawker literally thought they were doing something heroic by refusing to take down the video. They gloated about how it was their first amendment right and they were being freedom fighters by disobeying a court order.
>>67232428
Hulk Hogan is the Mickey Mouse of wrestling. He's been in every shitty video game since 1995 raking in loyalties, and now the gravy train has ended because of Gawker's actions. They owe him an ungodly sum of money for ruining his reputation.
Also, chances of this shit being overturned: not gonna happen. Not when Gawker regularly does shit like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3488027/Gawker-editor-AJ-Daulerio-refused-college-girl-s-pleas-possible-rape-video.html
>>67232428
The fact that he was illegally recorded, and then personally trespassed against when the people who hosted said illegal recording refused to heed the client's cease and desist letters?
The fact that the trespasser touted his refusal to comply?
What facts are we missing?
He reminds me of a substitute teacher I had in highschool. He had the same kind of look too, smug asshole.
>>67231268
>>67231243
No it was the editor.
But only if you reply to this post "Bleed em dry, hulkster"
>>67232428
Gawker 'joked' about child pornography. I don't see how they could hope to win this case. There's also the matter of the punitive costs that they will also have to pay for.
>>67232492
it's going to be a mess
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2016/03/8594339/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115-million-gawker-looks-appeal
>>67232428
Shouldn't you be writing some clickbait articles? Oh wait.
>>67232428
you realize this is already done, right?
The price might be lowered, but what the fuck is the public going to do about it? Gawker fucked themselves in the courtroom, is the public actually going to defend someone who insinuated that its ok to push sex tapes with children if its news worthy?
Gawker is going to die in the court of public opinion, only delusional SJWs will continue to back them up, besides they are in contempt of court, at this point the court probably wants to make an example of them
>>67231739
i've been reading this a lot,
can someone that knows about this stuff say why Gawker will win in the appeals court?
Like if they're so sure to win that, then why did they lose THIS case?
so this is how the 1st amendment dies..........with thunderous applause
its sad when twitter is a source of more justice than the united status judicial system..........
>>67232558
because hulk hogan is a shitlord reeeeeeeeeeee!
>>67232558
see the link in >>67232513
second half of the article
>yet another thread of /pol/ celebrating censorship
how many do you bigots need? -_-
>>67232582
LOL
Gawker doesn't give a shit about the first amendment, they're constantly demanding games like Dragon's Crown and Hatred be censored because they're "problematic." That doesn't sound like someone who promotes free speech.
>>67232582
You don't have a right to share someone's illegal sextape dumbass
>>67231739
>literally lost on all counts, joked about child pornograpy under oath and refused to comply to a court order
>they'll win the appeal guys! Just you wait!
It was just a joke bro
>>67232661
JUST a prank
>>67232582
Lol I know right, there definitely isn't anything about the right to reasonable privacy in the constitution, nor in the centuries of legal rulings after that.
The first amendment had been obliterated.
>>67232628
there's a difference between freedom of speech and just plain hate speech
if you go to twitter you'll see that the vast majority of people agree that this is outrageous
This guy makes a joke about CHILD PORNOGRAPHY in court!
You won't believe what happens next.
>>67232700
fuck off
>>67232628
Too bad Hatred is so boring of a game. You're better off just massacring everyone in a Hitman game.
>>67232700
>there's a difference between freedom of speech and just plain hate speech
Actually, no there fucking isn't. The whole "hate speech isn't protected" is SJW nonsense rhetoric.
Hate speech is ESPECIALLY protected by the first amendment, because speech that people aren't offended by doesn't need protection in the first place.
>if you go on twitter you'll see the vast majority of people agree
because twitter deletes and bans everyone who doesn't agree. Free speech indeed.
>>67232700
yeah fosho why my brother and uncle locked up for slanging dope while this white boy gets paid $115m shit that money could be going to my college education instead
>>67232628
You're an idiot. Videogames aren't news sources and aren't protected by the first ammendment
>>67232700
>there's a difference between freedom of speech and just plain hate speech
you are wrong
>>67232746
>Hate speech is ESPECIALLY protected by the first amendment, because speech that people aren't offended by doesn't need protection in the first place.
Oh yeah? How about you go downtown right now and spout your right wing racist ramblings in public? I dare you
>>67231094
Gawker is finished. No more kotaku, deadspin, or any of their other shitty sites. Thank you based Hogan.
Hulks bitch ass case was denied the first time around. It only got accepted because the judge wasn't as knowledgeable about the law as the first one.
But keep telling yourselves that Hulk actually has a case. The court of public opinion doesn't mean shit.
>>67232781
>Videogames aren't news sources
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are two separate things, retard. Freedom of speech protects the arts, too, it doesn't exclusively protect news sources.
And that's besides the point. The point is: Gawker doesn't give a shit about freedom of speech when they're constantly telling artists to change their work so it's less offensive.
>>67232833
Are you fucking retarded?
Murder is also illegal, but see what happens if you bang a bikie's wife.
![[Commie] Jinrui wa Suitai Shimashita - 03 [C2E1C969].mkv_snapshot_13.47_[2014.05.28_01.12.00].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BJXlVIx.jpg "[Commie] Jinrui wa Suitai Shimashita - 03 [C2E1C969].mkv_snapshot_13.47_[2014.05.28_01.12.00].jpg")
>>67232582
So I'm confused about the Cuck's idea of privacy, because they'll bash the NSA, yet claim leaking an illegally filmed private video and refusing court orders ordering its deletion as a first amendment right.
Maybe you should read the first amendment, as there is much confusion. It reads as follows:
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Okay, what does Freedom of the Press mean?
>Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
Okay, so the press doesn't have the right to do anything the public can't, including possessing an illegally recorded private video.
>>67232850
He already fucking won you idiot.
>>67232746
Ok, tell me this: 1) When is hate speech acceptable? and 2) Why should a celebrity be allowed to censor American press?
>>67232833
What right wing racist ramblings? Your prejudice is showing.
We're talking about freedom of speech here. If I want to make a painting of the president with crosshairs over his forehead and put it in an art gallery I can do that, no matter how many people it offends. I say this specifically because this is exactly what an artist did in Chicago several years ago.
You're fucking nuts. Street justice has nothing to do with censorship.
>The company’s legal justification for posting the tape — that the sex tape was a newsworthy matter of public concern and therefore Gawker’s publication of it was protected by the First Amendment
top kek
Didn't Gawker through a hissy fit with all the leaked female celebrity pics? What a fucking joke. There is a reason that they are looked down upon in the Journalist world.
>/tv/ has a GIDF
I should have expected as much from contrarians - the board
>>67232916
Gawker illegally posted a private sextape, so he sued them. The fappening guy is fucking going to jail for 5 years.
>>67232916
Not her but this is the counter argument of Hawker, right. Why should a celebrity be allowed to censor press. When worded like that, I can't think of a good reason.
I wonder what Hogan's lawyers said then.
So this is how the first amendment dies, with thunderous applause
>>67232993
They're sharing an illegally obtained item
>>67232700
>>67232916
>Why should a celebrity be allowed to censor American press?
When a leaked sex tape of his got leaked and Gawker claimed sole ownership of it and refused to remove it when Hogan got a court order that ordered them to do so.It's pretty simple.
>>67232916
Hate speech isn't acceptable.
Hate speech is a necessary evil resulting of free speech. Of course most people would rather people not say hateful things, but barring it is an excess a Nation cannot afford.
When you start saying that certain things cannot be said, then you set a dangerous precedent, which are important in non Civil Law legal systems.
Is a man not entitled to his voice, no matter what that voice has to say?
It is his to say, and it is your every right to refute or ignore that saying.
When we start policing people's thoughts, we descend into tyranny.
>>67231094
That's literally the moment when he lost the case for Gawker.
>>67232902
ITT butthurt liberals that are upset about a site going bankrupt when if the exact same thing happened and the roles were reversed with an illegally filmed woman's sex tape not being taken down they would be screaming for blood.
>>67232974
You should be more impressed that there are people that actually understand and want to uphold the sanctity of our Constitution, and not set some ridiculous precedent just because their childhoohd hero made a series of bad decisions and now wants those who exposed those decisions to clean up his own mess.
>>67232974
it's redditors
>>67233086
Not IF, it did. Remember the Erin Andrews case just last month?
>>67232916
Hate speech is almost always acceptable. The only time I think it might not be is if it's being used to incite a riot, which is against the law. That's not to say hate speech is socially acceptable, but legally it is.
Hulk Hogan isn't censoring the press. Gawker is tabloid that prints lies, stalks celebrities, doesn't fact check, and publishes clickbait on par with "Elvis Presley Gives Birth to Alien Cat." Hogan didn't break any laws, which is the only time a defamation of character piece might actually be warranted.
>>67232746
>free speech can actually be used as a weapon to silence the vulnerable and dispossessed.
Jesus christ SJWs have to warp the meaning and intention of everything so it literally becomes the opposite.
>>67233052
>getting triggered by "white male" being used as an insult
literally SJW tier shi
>>67233080
wow, not one instance in your inane rambling do you even address my question
i'm through with you. go away and let the adults talk now
Don't take the bait fellas
>>67233087
You do realize that they got an illegally obtained tape and then refused to take it down from their site when the court demanded that they did so?
>>67233087
>series of bad decisions
Which one? Cause the only decision he made was deciding to bang his friend's wife. He never shot it, he never sold the tape to a tabloid, he never distributed the tape, he didn't keep the tape up after a court order told him to remove it, etc. Hogan literally hasn't done shit in this case, other than fuck someone
>>67233122
Millenial Democrat voters is basically as beta tier as a person can get
>>67233080
another part of the problem is that anything can be spun as "hate speech" if enough people want it to be
it's literally in nobody's rational self-interest to allow this kind of shit, not even the SJWs
the things that they say could be spun to be "hate speech", and then they'd be tasting their own medicine
I don't think they realize how bad this whole sort of mindset is in the long term, even for themselves.
>>67233147
How it was obtained
isn't as important as the contents it contained
Good for Hulk. Not really a fan, but Gawker was in the wrong. I'm a SJW btw.
I'm not really sure I understand all the weird strawman shit you guys are doing here. It's probably time for ya'll to go back to /pol/ now.
>>67232833
>How about you go downtown right now and spout your right wing racist ramblings in public? I dare you
You're a fucking idiot. Just because something is legal doesn't automatically make it a good idea.
I can go to my toolbox right now and drive a nail through my dick. There are literally no laws against that. Same thing with hate speech. No laws against it.
>>67233255
>I'm not really sure I understand all the weird strawman shit you guys are doing here
It's the same weird strawman shit that SJWs do.
Both sides are the problem. The same problem.
>>67233154
Are you serious? Are you kidding me?
>>67233284
Goddammit I hate you Carl
Oh no not Gawker!!!
http://gawker.com/apparently-keith-richards-once-nearly-pulled-a-knife-o-1765750981
>"God love you, Keith (for nearly stabbing donald trump)"- Gawker
>>67232916
1.) Hate speech is always acceptable.
2.) Because his privacy was infringed. Of course you could also say that privacy doesn't exist etc, but then it should also be legal to share copyrighted material for free speech purposes.
>>67233278
Cool story, but I literally don't know what you are talking about. I guess I missed the SJW newsletter this month.
inb4 you post links to reddit or gibberish /pol/ memese
>>67233309
>Hate speech is always acceptable.
Hi pol
>>67233241
>How it was obtained isn't as important as the contents it contained
This isn't a whistleblower case.
>>67231094
>Being a smug prick and making sarcastic comments doesn't work in court
What a surprise
>>67233337
Jokes on you, my main board is /a/ :^)
>>67233337
socially acceptable =/= legally acceptable
your feelings aren't protected by the law
>>67233356
What's the Hulkamania of /a/?
>>67233356
>my main board is /a/
That sounds like the jokes on you
>>67233337
Yous aren't the same as Likes on Normiebook dude.
>>67233356
>my main board is /a/
man, I feel sorry for you.
>>67233320
You're right, only one side of any disagreement ever strawmans, misunderstands, or misrepresents the other side.
>>67233123
FOOL! You don't understand!
We had to give up freedom of speech to save ourselves from oppression.
It makes perfect sense when you're not a fucking white male cishet shitlord.
>>67233337
>There is no slippery slope to everything I don't like being hate speech
>>67233370
see pic
>>67233373
Arigatou fampai
>>67233390
Every board on 4chan is shit, don't act like you are any better than me.
>>67233122
>tfw your post ends the argument
>>67232746
Well that picture made me rage
Seriously they just want to silence their critics. I hate when liberals make the Donald Trump = Hitler comments and it's all the more ironic considering they behave like the Brown Shirts did.
>>67233366
That's actually wrong though..
What you call "free speech" isn't actually free. It actually is what is "socially acceptable". The right combination of words will get you arrested. That isn't really free speech.
>>67233456
>What you call "free speech" isn't actually free
stopped reading right there. Confirmed for retard.
>>67233423
To be fair I don't think anyone ITT is against free speech. I think the 'Hate speech' fags are just trolls looking for Youvotes
>>67233469
>that rebuttal
dam son fucking #REKT
>>67233456
>The right combination of words will get you arrested.
>What you call "free speech" isn't actually free. It actually is what is "socially acceptable".
That's how it's supposed to work.
You're free to say those words and accept all consequences that come along with it.
>>67233469
Can you say "anything you want" without the gov stopping you or arresting you?
If yes = free speech
If no = you have limited form of speech
lrn2law
This is the problem with idiots. You only learn very dumbed down shit in grade/high school, and then think that is the whole story. It's fucking ridiculous.
Does Gawker own Voxx media?
>>67233456
Good thing we have lawyers who exist specifically so if this sort of thing happens you're protected.
>>67233478
I want you to be right. You have no idea. But I've lost all faith in these matters.
>>67231739
They don't have a chance of winning the appeal.
>>67232833
>being this retarded
>>67233122
Everyone is fine with tabloids since almost no one takes them seriously.
Gawker's greatest sin is being a tabloid but fronting itself and all its subsidiaries as legitimate journalism.
Hulkster did the world a favor by suplexing that den of vipers back into the eighth circle of Hell.
>>67233532
>consequences
U WUT M8?
There is a big difference between consequences from the GOV and PUBLIC. The 1st is designed to provide general protection from "consequences" from the GOV. However, as with every general law there are a shit ton of exception and caveats. Which turn the whole notion of "free speech" into "limited speech".
Regardless, this has no bearing on what PUBLIC consequences of speech might be. This is often what the right winger gets confused on.
Why does he not just say "You can't actually believe I was speaking 100% seriously when I said that I'd consider a 4 year olds celebrity sex tape to be newsworthy. That's absurd. I was clearly sarcastic in tone when speaking, and any further questions you ask pertaining to this, I ask that you refer directly to this response, as I will not be repeating myself again."
Was it so hard?
>>67233550
That's not real, right?
>>67233550
You don't make any sense. You aren't "protected" from "yelling fire in a theater" or for "confessing to a crime".
If you can be arrested for certain types of speech, it isn't free speech.
>>67233752
Because "implied sarcasm" isn't a legal defense when you swore an oath to tell the truth.
>>67233783
It's not implied if he says it was the case.
>>67233752
You clearly have no legal experience at all.
KEK
>>67233802
Okay, thanks Judge Steinberg for your insight.
>>67233716
Not him but what exactly are you trying to prove with your posts? What's your end goal?
Just spit it out.
>>67233801
That's admission to lying under oath then, which does not fly well at all.
He even had several chances to correct the transcript and still signed off on it, with three lawyers helping alongside with it. It isn't an offhand comment, it's legally "the truth."
>>67233801
>I was being sarcastic
>I didn't really mean that I...
KEK
Good luck with that
>>67233716
>U WUT M8?
Right back at ya.
>The 1st is designed to provide general protection from "consequences" from the GOV
Newsflash: 1st amendment rights extend to CIVIL LIBERTIES AS WELL.
>However, as with every general law there are a shit ton of exception and caveats. Which turn the whole notion of "free speech" into "limited speech".
...no it means you have the freedom of speech so long as you accept the consequences of your actions.
>Regardless, this has no bearing on what PUBLIC consequences of speech might be.
for fuck's sake don't sleep through Civics 101 again when you retake it.
>>67233752
Because the fucking idiot thinks that the judge and lawyer should already realize that. Unfortunately for him, looks loke jokes don't fly too good in court.
>>67233752
Jesus Christ
>>67233752
>haha I'm gonna joke about child porn of a 4 year old being newsworthy and make no obvious signs I'm joking or tell anyone afterwards I'm joking even when signing it
>WOW why are you taking this sworn under oath answer seriously, fucking bugged judge mechanics
Just delete your post
>>67233841
I've already directly made my point several times. It's in my first post/response too. This isn't connect the fucking dots kid. I'm not leading you on an adventure. Work on that reading comprehension and just read what I posted.
>>67233752
> "You can't actually believe I was speaking 100% seriously when I said that I'd consider a 4 year olds celebrity sex tape to be newsworthy. That's absurd. I was clearly sarcastic in tone when speaking, and any further questions you ask pertaining to this, I ask that you refer directly to this response, as I will not be repeating myself again."
>>67233752
>You can't actually believe I was speaking 100% seriously
lol. is that how youd talk to the cops? youll end mauled sooner than later.
>>67233949
>I've already directly made my point several times.
So posting it again isn't a big deal.
>It's in my first post/response too.
>This isn't connect the fucking dots kid.
Except you're making it connect the dots.
>>67233752
>take an oath to tell the plain truth
>proceed to what is infact "lying."
This man is a grown adult, not a teenager or child. And has several lawyers and likely has been through the court process before.
He legitimately should know better than any of us than to "act cute."
>>67233877
>1st amendment rights extend to civil liberties
No shit, when did I say otherwise?
>it means you have the freedom of speech so long as you accept the consequences of your actions
No. That isn't true. Are you even American?
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"
So, if there is a law that dictates I be arrested for saying "x", congress has abridged my free-speech, right? And there are such laws, hence we don't have free speech, we have limited speech.
>the 1st amendment covers what the public does
KEK
I hope you're trolling
>>67233949
>laughing men picture to make me seem like the calm rational one
>I'll call him kid as a way to demean him and make me out as the smarter one
>Dude reading comprehension lmao!
What about the part that said I wasn't even that fucking guy did you not understand?
Your posts had no substance and you completely dance around whatever point you were trying to make.
You're a fucking idiot man.
anyone else cry while listening to real american after hearing the news?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-paa3wwGWww
>>67234114
Hi /pol/
>>67231739
>blatantly defy the court
>think they'll be easy on you
>>67232428
> lmao I don't understand a fucking thing - the post
Go back to the kiddie table you drooling fucking retard.
>>67234114
How does you being a different anon, make you incapable of scrolling up and reading?
>>67234144
What did I even say that was remotely /pol/?
Get a grip you fucking numbskull. Maybe get some rest.
>>67234163
Why don't you just tell me what your point is? What your ending argument is?
I as well as others ITT are just too damn stupid to get it apparently as he is arguing with multiple people.
So just fucking spell it out for us.
>joking about child pornography when under oath
How fucking dumb can you get?
>>67234098
>No shit, when did I say otherwise?
When you quoted it as a law, not a constitutional right.
> leaking a porn video led to an argument on free speech
... What? Does nobody fucking else see this as a massive fucking stretch?
> freedom of speech allows us to release personal videos in the internet
And somebody actually thought this was going to hold up in court?
>>67231094
The only thing I don't get is why Hulk gets so much money? Is it based on Gawkers revenue or what?
>>67234098
No one is stopping you from saying what you want. You just have to accept any/all consequences that come with it.
>>67234279
This guy jokes about kiddy fucking when under oath. He's not a smart man.
>>67234300
so literally everyone who ever lived had the freedom of speech. that's very useful anon. why don't we just throw the term out of the window since it's completely meaningless in your world.
Hate Speech is Free Speech.
The law doesn't end where your feelings begin, the only time Hate speech is unacceptable is if it used to incite a riot, or possibly driving somebody to committing a crime/suicide
>>67234343
>so literally everyone who ever lived had the freedom of speech
Except for the persons put to death for speaking against the crown/their government you fucking moron.
>>67234374
then what does "accepting consqeuences" actually mean? those seem like consequences to me.
>>67234245
>Gawker? Well that sure looks like a great place to work in
Pretty fucking dum
>>67234291
Gawker went against a court order. The large sum is basically the courts trying to set precedent for ignoring a court order
>>67234392
>then what does "accepting consqeuences" actually mean?
It means accepting the responsibilities for your actions are you 12?
>>67234416
Ah, thanks for the info. That kinda makes sense.
What I've red is that the gawker "journalists" aren't really in trouble, just the company. Is this correct?
>Shitaku will die in your lifetime
>>67234446
you said:
>No one is stopping you from saying what you want.
you can actually be put into prison for saying things you know. and you don't consider that as restricting one's freedom of speech?
you say these things
>>67234416
I highly doubt there wasn't a precedent for going against a court order before, but regarding the yellow press,this could be a first.Oh who am I kidding? All press is the yellow press these days.
They wrote an article which said they'd blatantly disregard the ruling of the court
http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088
They're fucked
>>67233752
>>67233826
Because he took an oath to tell the truth in court.
>>67234485
Yeah, the site itself and the higher up (ie, editor) are in trouble.
Other uninvolved employees aren't in legal trouble, because why the fuck would they
They would likely need to seek new employment though considering that 115 million dollars is nearly half the sites net worth.
>>67234518
>you're not the law.
>I'm the law.
>20 years in the poverty cubes, creep
>>67233752
he has been treating the entire process quite flippantly, i'm sure he's as shocked as you that moral high-grounding and trying to take the progressive stance isn't actually a valid tactic in court.
i would be super pissed at the gawker legal team if i was him, it was very foolish of them to let that that comment be submitted uncontested.
>>67234506
Different Anon, but it greatly depends on the kinds of things you can be put in prison for.
Admitting a crime is one thing you can go to prison for. Not being extremely familiar with american laws, I'm just assuming you meant less black and white cases than that, what do you consider to be a current infraction of the freedom of speech?
To my knowledge, no one can get charged with treason anymore just for saying something.
>>67234506
>you can actually be put into prison for saying things you know
Yep, and they cannot stop you from using the mail system to continue making the same statements publicly. You have the freedom of speech so long as you take responsibility for your actions*.
*This has to be the 3rd or 4th time I've had to say this you dense fuck.
>>67234540
Not to mention, that comment was said three years ago. They've had three years to correct it so it wouldn't fuck them over
>>67233752
Just end yourself already
>>67234300
>Free speech = not stopping you
WUT?
"Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship."
If you can literally get arrested (aka retaliation) for saying something, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE FREE SPEECH. Stop being a moron.
>people actually believing gawker had a chance after they literally wrote an article about how the were intentionally defying a court order
Lmao good luck on that appeal
>>67234552
oh okay that doesn't seem restrictive at all then. i guess we have different ideas about freedom.
Stop arguing about free speech you fucking mongs, absolutely nothing about this case has shit to do with free speech.
>>67234552
>they cannot stop you from making statements publicly
Yes they can. You're not American are you?
>>67233122
Millennial (18-34)
(18 to fucking 34????!?)
So people born in 1982 are millenials ?? Retardation in the extreme due to the dates, but also because the SJW mentality isn't apparent in anyone i know over 28. People wise up to the world - only the most misguided of liberals (communists) stay that way through adult hood, everyone else sees subhuman so (I.e 'the other', aka the Indian Gujarati who shuts in the floor in linden because thats what he did back home, the Arab who rapes and disrespects women in Cologne, because that's what they do back home. Sensible people see that shit and want their immigration shut down
>>67234592
>"Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship."
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU QUOTING
>If you can literally get arrested (aka retaliation) for saying something, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE FREE SPEECH
AND WHY DON'T YOU POST EXAMPLES THAT LIMIT FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
>Stop being a moron.
another post another fallacy
>>67234628
That's the fucking point. This has nothing to do with free speech, and Gawker were retarded enough to use that as their defence
>>67233752
Wow you are dumb.
This fucking moron has now been documented by law to believe that publishing child porn is newsworthy. That is his official belief, and he signed it.
What a fucking dickhead. His lawyers must want him to lose.
>>67234638
Ignore this post, I used an iPad and it makes me look illiterate. Worst keyboards on any tablets ever
>>67234633
Go ahead and provide examples that apply.
>>67234628
>Stop arguing about free speech you fucking mongs, absolutely nothing about this case has shit to do with free speech.
That's what is so funny. It's his "defense"
>>67234552
You're right! HOLY SHIT! Being arrested for saying words = FREE SPEECH!
TOP KEKKLES
>>67234628
isn't that his whole defence? as uttered several times in the video linked?
>>67231094
38:00 is when Gawkerman digs his own grave.
>>67232700
>making a videogame about killing people is hate speech
say waht
>>67232019
if you think hogan will get anywhere near $100m you are retarded.
>>67234736
Except punitive damages haven't been determined yet. His settlement will exceed 100M$
Bored so summing up with an analogy:
Two people make a private movie, say Steven Spielberg and whoever, Ron Howard. Then spielbergs partner steals this film and sells it to,a website, who then publish it in order for them to make money.
This 3rd party has stolen for profit, pure and simple, and destroyed a career in the process, and then ignored cease and desist orders and court requests to stop. They are not gonna survive appeal
This is what happens when your entire staff including your legal department is some sort of millennial sjw hybrid cock suckers that actually believe that the first amendment can somehow be applied to this situation and your entire fucking legal defense hinges on this ludicrous idea.
Oh god its like watching someone set their house on fire intentionally and then stand outside complaining about how fast it burns
>>67234787
You're missing a part at the start, Steven Spielberg and Ron Howard didn't make the tape. Someone else shot it without their permission
Kotaku isn't going anywhere. Kotaku is one of their biggest sites. It's sticking around and there's nothing you can do about it.
>>67234767
>His settlement will exceed 100M$
yep, you're retarded.
>yfw they appeal
>yfw judge orders them to pay even more money
>also
>be Hogan
>fuck a hot slut
>make $115m out of it
AMERICA FUCK YEAH!
>getting arrested for violating a court order (gag order for example) violates freedom of speech
u guys cmon
>>67234812
Even better, thanks for reminding me. What would happen to a regular person if they did that to a Spielberg film?? They'd be in prison with Multimullions in MPAA fines is what
>>67234787
Uh, it's not stealing, it's just making a copy, dumbas.
>>67234787
Hogan didn't know he was being recorded.
>>67234787
>you'll never see the Steven Spielberg and Ron Howard sex tape
>>67234736
>he wont get any where near $100 million!
Give me any reason he wont, fuckwad.
>>67234824
Suspiciously sounds like you have some interest in it doing so. Or are you one of those people who scream "WAKE UP SHEEPLE" at those who think something you don't agree with?
>>67234856
He has to pay his lawyers I guess
>>67234824
It can be as big your fat ass, anon, but it doesn't matter they get sued into having to shut down completely.
>>67234834
oh no the retard who has nothing factual to back his statement up countered my factual statement with another nonsense post.
whatever should I do?!?
Non-American here, how do appeals work and why are people so sure Gawker would win one when they already lost once?
>>67231094
Sorry lads I don't keep up much with celebrity shit, so did Hulk Hogan have CP? If so why are /pol/ defending him? If I'm wrong about this can someone pls clear it up
>>67234891
You are an idiot
>>67234837
>That gif
It's sublime.
It's no doubt one of the most sublime visual experiences I have been introduced by /tv/ in the past month.
Thank you.
>>67234891
Maybe you should watch the video, retard.
>>67233752
WOOOW what a noob
>>67234888
Basically, it's the jury system. I suspect Gawker will rely on jealously and typical relucta e of regular blokes to give +$115m to a millionaire. It's bullshit basically
>>67234910
Have this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9exRkanDwAY
>>67234902
>>67234914
Yeah it's 40 fucking minutes long sorry I don't sit in my mom's basement all day with my dick in my hand.
>>67234888
The retard who openly defended the hypothetical situation of not publishing a porn tape of a 4 year old tainted the jury pool. A new trial and jury is needed in order for a fair trial to be conducted.
>>67234980
Maybe you should stop being such a fucking retard and realize the link to the video includes a timecode that gets right to the relevant bit, you mouthbreathing faceshitting ignoramus.
>>67234986
They need to get a new jury that doesn't know all the facts to have a fair trial?
>>67234552
Jesus christ, are you even reading your own posts??
>>67234552
>muh furst amemmant, dats da "freedumb of speech" one, dat means i can say whadever i want"
IT WAS JUST A PRANK
>>67234939
This would be perfect, if not for the fact that "Gamers are Dead" doesn't change to something else like "I am dead" in the last few moments.
9/10.
lol liberals
>>67235009
>They need to get a new jury that doesn't know all the facts to have a fair trial?
What? I never posted or hinted at that.
No one who makes a joke about child porn will ever get a fair trial; the statement tainted the jury/added unfair bias.
>>67233752
>Anon is arrested for whatever fucked up pedo shit he's been doing
>Given the opportunity to call a lawyer
>"Don't worry, I've got this"
>>67235082
That sounds more like the jury system is inherently fucked.
>>67234999
haha looks like I struck a nerve man, I know it's hard but maybe you should try and get some pussy to relieve yourself of that frustration instead of jerking it to cartoons.
Also the timecode or whatever skipped to like 4 minutes in for me so that doesn't help much does it
>>67234639
I was quoting Wikipedia, but all dictionaries pretty much say the same shit. This isn't rocket science. Here is the one from the legal-dictionary.com: "to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction".
Here is the dictionary.com "the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference"
>I'm too dumb to think of basic examples where someone can get arrested for "saying something"
Really? What about....obstruction of justice, fraud, racketeering, conspiracy, confessing to a crime, yelling fire in a theater, inciting a riot, perjury, do I need to go on? All these can be done by "speech" alone. And they are AGAINST THE LAW.
inb4 BUTT THOSE ARE CRIMES
no shit, that's the point
inb4 they don't count..MUHH FREE-SPEECH
Cool special pleading son
Protip: Calling you a moron isn't a fallacy. It's just calling you a moron.
>>67234891
there was a court order to Gawker to take down Hulk Hogan's leaked sex tape.
Gawker did not and bragged about it in another article.
This whole court case is about Gawker not following the court order because they are sighting the first amendment and saying Hulk's sex tape is newsworthy.
during the deposition the editor (the guy in the video) made a sarcastic remark that a 4 year old's sex tape is also newsworthy.
the whole video is about Hulk's lawyer grilling the editor for that comment.
>>67235145
>I was quoting Wikipedia
Wow.
>>67235168
Hi pol
>>67235139
Not even gonna waste my time reading your post, you're so bad at the internet you can't even figure out how youtube urls work. How does it feel being the dumbest person in this thread and everyone knows it?
>>67235122
Well, that's because it is. Nobody actually believes in the justice system any more, right? That's like believing in Santa Claus.
>>67234552
>I am taking responsibility for yelling FIRE in a crowded theater because I went to jail afterwards
>I am now merely warning America about the ongoing combustibility of cinema complexes nationwide
>>67232746
Why bring up the first amendment at all? Why is it not self-evident that it is wrong to shout over people and silence people because they don't agree with you?
>>67234878
It won't be shut down.
>>67231398
>mfw when not one single fuck was given that day
>>67235082
the fucking accused (gawker) tainted it themselves. That doesn't deserve a retrial based on that. If an accused murderer starting going off on the witness stand how he likes murdering and raping kids, even as a joke, do you think he should get a retrial because lol he tainted his own trial xd
>>67235216
Okay bud that's cool so did he have CP or nah?
>>67234891
Hulk was just helping a bro out with his cuckhold fantasies.
>>67233122
In Britbong land they allowed tabloids to violate the privacy of Naomi Campbell because in doing so they revealed that she had been lying to the public about her not having taken drugs, so there is a precedent for this kind of thing...
>>67231739
>tfw getting notice of favorable decision from the courts
>>67235240
Neither will your mothers gash bag but she'll still keep popping out oxygen starved aspies like yourself anon.
