In a closely watched trial by the media community, shortly after 7pm on Friday night, and less than six hours after starting deliberations, the jury sided with ex-pro wrestler Hulk Hogan and awarded him $115 million in his sex tape lawsuit against Gawker Media. The trial lasted two weeks. The award consists of $55 million for economic injuries, and $60 million for emotional distress.
According to CBS, Hogan, dressed all in black including a black bandana, cried when the verdict was announced, CBS affiliate WTSP said while members of Gawker’s team listened in shocked silence as the verdict was read.
The trial, which has been years in the making, has major implications not only with its potential “chilling effect” on the freedom of speech, but also focuses on the grey space of “what is public news”, and finally has potentially terminal implications for the future of Gawker which will likely be forced to go out of business unless it miraculously lowers the damages on appeal.
For those who are unfamiliar, Hogan, whose given name is Terry Bollea, had sued Gawker for $100 million for publishing an edited video of the wrestler having sex with the then-wife of a radio shock jock named Bubba the Love Sponge. Hogan contended the 2012 post violated his privacy.
In spirited closing arguments on Friday, lawyers for Hogan and Gawker discussed themes of personal life versus celebrity, and freedom of speech versus the right to privacy. Hogan’s attorneys told jurors this is the core of the case: “Gawker took a secretly recorded sex tape and put it on the Internet.”
They said Hogan didn’t consent to the video, that Gawker didn’t follow usual journalism procedures before posting it and that the video wasn’t newsworthy. Gawker did not try to contact Bollea or the woman in the video, and nor did the website contact the woman’s husband, DJ Bubba The Love Sponge Clem, who recorded the video.
It was never conclusively determined during trial who leaked the video to the media.
Hogan didn’t ask for any of this to happen, lawyer Kenneth Turkel said, adding that Bollea, the private man, expected privacy during an intimate moment. Much was made during the trial of Hogan’s celebrity persona versus Bollea’s privacy.
“I want you to imagine the fact that for 35 plus years he is essentially an actor, an entertainer, who has played the same role,” said Turkel. He said Hogan “has every right, every right, to keep whatever precious private moments in his life, which for this gentlemen are very few.”
Hogan’s lawyers also said Gawker’s value increased by $15 million due to the post, while Gawker contends it made $11,000 in ad revenue.
Hulk Hogan took the stand in court over a leaked sex tape of him, and some of the testimony got explicit.
Gawker’s attorneys told the jury that the video is “not like a real celebrity sex tape” and urged them to watch the video, which contains nine seconds of sexual content. They pointed out that news of the sex tape first appeared on at least two websites: TMZ and The Dirty. Hogan went on TMZ’s TV program to talk about it, and later appeared on the Howard Stern show.
“He has consistently chosen to put his private life out there, for public consumption,” said attorney Michael Sullivan. He also criticized Hogan’s claim that he was in Hulk Hogan persona when he was doing interviews.
“An actor playing a character does that on set, but when they go on a talk show, they’re themselves,” Sullivan said. Sullivan called into question whether the tape was all a celebrity stunt to drum up publicity for Hogan’s career. He suggested that although the jurors might find the video, Gawker and Hogan’s sex life distasteful, they must protect the First Amendment right to free speech.
“We ask you to protect something that some of you may find unpleasant,” he said. “To write, to speak, to think about all topics, to hold public figures accountable. It is right in the long run for our freedoms.”
The jury disagreed.
Putting the $115 million award in context, according ro previously disclosed information, Gawker’s operating income for 2015 amounted to $6.5 million, 18 times less than the awarded damages. The website generated around $24 million in profit in the past 5 years. The company’s revenue in 2014 was $44.2 million.
Previously Nick Denton, Gawker’s CEO, had indicated that Gawker’s future hung in the balance if the jury ruled in Mr. Hogan’s favor for the full amount. “It’s a $100 million lawsuit,” Mr. Denton told The New York Times earlier this month. “We don’t keep $100 million in the bank, no.”
According to Gawker’s release, the company, which has never taken outside investment, has had five years of steady, if not eye-popping, growth. But for a media company, not losing money is good. Making some is even better. Many media companies would be very pleased with a profit growth of almost 10 percent. Gawker had also disclosed that its very expensive legal fees came out of its $6.53 million operating income but the company did take an $8 million loan from Silicon Valley Bank to pay for its new flatiron office, which the company is scheduled to move to later this month. That loan may now be impaired.
“With the possibility of an initial judgment against Gawker Media at the forthcoming trial in Florida, there’s been interest in the company’s underlying financial health,” Denton said in a statement. “Our journalists and I stand for open discussion of true and interesting stories, and our finances have become part of the story. So we intend to be open about them, both in the media and in the St. Petersburg courtroom. I am as proud of our business track record as I am of our writers’ reputation for journalistic boldness.”
He may now be regretting his writers’ journalistic boldness.
And while the implications of this trial will reverberate in online media and the interpretation of what content is and what isn’t subject to the First Amendment, some early media comments suggest that for the time being schadenfreude is winning over concerns over the trial’s chilling effects on the media.
Ordinarily I’d be very concerned about the effects of this Gawker verdict on chilling of press freedom, but it’s Gawker. Fuck em.
— Popehat (@Popehat) March 18, 2016
In retrospect it probably wasn’t a good idea for Gawker to sell ads on their live coverage of the trial, but then they wouldn’t be Gawker.
— Popehat (@Popehat) March 19, 2016
via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Rs2DSs Tyler Durden