Gawker Defies Judge, Refuses To Take Down Post About Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Despite Court Order
from the first-amendment,-brother dept
Gawker has been in a legal fight with Hulk Hogan, who was upset that they posted a brief clip (about 1 minute out of 30 minutes) of a sex tape involving Hogan and Heather Clem, the wife of one of Hogan's friends. Hogan claims that he didn't know he was being filmed at the time. His initial lawsuit, for $100 million, had a huge number of questionable claims and a federal court ruled against Hogan pretty quickly, pointing out that Gawker was protected by the First Amendment. Hogan then tried strategy two, which was suing in state court in Florida under a particular state law. Somewhat amazingly, the judge in that case has now granting an injunction against Gawker's post, but made it so incredibly broad that it effectively demanded not just the takedown of the video, but the entire post, written by A.J. Daulerio (which was about the whole concept of celebrity sex tapes, rather than just about the Hulk Hogan video) and all of the comments on that post.It's unfortunate when state courts seem to go out on a limb like this, and Gawker has decided that the ruling is so ridiculous that it's refusing to take down the post, though it did agree to take down the video clip (again, which was just a very small portion, which is why the federal judge had argued it was protected by fair use). In the Florida case, Hogan is claiming that the publication of the video was an invasion of privacy. Even if that's true -- and it seems like a stretch -- to the go even further and order the entire commentary be taken down as well is extreme and clearly beyond the First Amendment. Amazingly, the judge also determined that a preliminary injunction was appropriate without even looking at the video in question!
We publish all manner of stories here. Some are serious, some are frivolous, some are dumb. I am not going to make a case that the future of the Republic rises or falls on the ability of the general public to watch a video of Hulk Hogan fucking his friend's ex-wife. But the Constitution does unambiguously accord us the right to publish true things about public figures. And Campbell's order requiring us to take down not only a very brief, highly edited video excerpt from a 30-minute Hulk Hogan fucking session but also a lengthy written account from someone who had watched the entirety of that fucking session, is risible and contemptuous of centuries of First Amendment jurisprudence.In the Gawker post, they demonstrate segments from the transcript where it appears the judge is quite unfamiliar with the basic concepts of freedom of speech, and the fact that it extends beyond what someone is verbally saying out loud. For example, she expresses confusion over what "free speech" issue there even is and asks Gawker's lawyer if it's the "speech" between Hogan and the woman he's having sex with, and then being confused when the lawyer points out he's talking about the written report about it.
The injunction really does seem to go against pretty much all First Amendment case law. Furthermore, on the question of comments from others, the ruling seems to completely ignore Section 230 of the CDA as well, which clearly says Gawker is not liable for those comments. While the subject matter here may be a bit crazy, the ruling is serious... and seriously problematic for those who believe in free speech.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: hulk hogan
Companies: gawker
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
promoting a bit of vulgarity that cheapens all freespeech
The content of their speech here is not worth fighting over.
‘First they came for the pornography…’
People fight for the First Amendment right to express ideas that we find offensive or vulgar specifically so that the government can’t later expand the supression of that right into other areas.
I remind you that the ACLU sued the state of Illinois on behalf of a group of Neo-Nazis for this exact reason — and won.
Just because speech is in principle "free" doesn't mean that it's in unlimited supply. You cannot spend "free speech" on trivial and vulgar subjects and still have it!
I can say whatever fucking vulgar things I want and you can’t legally do jack fucking shit about it because my fucking right to offend you doesn’t give you the right to not feel fucking offended at my speech.
Gawker didn’t fucking defame Hogan, and it didn’t fucking do or say anything illegal by posting that rundown of his sex tape or the commentary on sex tapes in general. Vulgarity doesn't serve as a barrier to free speech, and fucking shame on you for suggesting otherwise.
I bet a jury hands Gawker a big loss simply because they don't want to see it
And then Gawker gets to appeal the verdict, win said appeal specifically on constitutional grounds, and shove it in that jury’s face.
Clearly Gawker likes to wallow in this stuff, and your mother will take an instant dislike, won't get to the Constitutional questions.
At which point your mother will decide a case based on emotion instead of facts.
I can and DO judge what's worthwhile.
You can judge whether you consider certain expressions or forms of speech worth your while, but when it comes to the Constitutional protections of the First Amendment, I believe nine souls who sit on a very important bench in a very important city have a far greater right than you to judge what we should consider ‘worth’ protecting.
If the battle lines for free speech are now down to defending publishing this, civilization is about over.
The ACLU fought for Neo-Nazis specifically because it believed even offensive speech deserved Constitutional protections, and the courts agreed.
The videogame industry fought against the state of California for the right to publish violent videogames without having that right impugned by an unconstitutional fine.
Larry Flynt won a Supreme Court decision that expanded the protections afforded to parodies — for publishing an ad in Hustler that said Jerry Falwell lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse.
We defend the offensive, the vile, the vulgar, and the disturbing because we must.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Publicity stunt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Publicity stunt
And I don’t have a high opinion of Gawker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Publicity stunt
“Streisand Effect” meets professional wrestling.
Cheap way to get eyeballs. Their ad revenues must be dropping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Publicity stunt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Publicity stunt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Publicity stunt
The fact that reality is real means it doesn't have to make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can’t wait to see the legal equivalent of Austin giving Vince a beer bath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or Maybe...
Thanks, I'll be here all week.
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"And then talking about he had an extramarital affair. He was in a bedroom. It was not his bedroom. It was not his wife, et cetera. A tape was made allegedly. Someone is trying to shop that tape. You can say all that in words."
This is from the transcript, from the side that wanted the injunction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does that even come close to sounding as if it doesn't run counter to the protections of the First Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would I be pissed off at you? Sure. Pissed off enough to punch you in the face if I ever saw you? Probably. Pissed off enough to sue? Nope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
he acts as if the world is against him and hes some kind of picked on 12yo girl.....
I was a huge fan when I was a kid, till I met the man behind the scenes, he lost my respect then....the mans ego is even more out of control then shatners was....and thats bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the contrary, the Supreme Court has said that state rights of publicity are to be balanced against First Amendment interests: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=zacchini+v.+scripps+howard&hl=en&as_sdt=2,19&ca se=16238771870259020023&scilh=0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Even if Gawker came into possession of the sex tape via unlawful means, its description of the video (and the aformentioned general commentary) does not constitute an unlawful act. The theft of the Pentagon Papers constituted an unlawful act; reporters talking about the information contained within the Pentagon Papers does not. Any attempt by a court to prevent such discussions qualifies as a blatant end run around the First Amendment.
Nothing Gawker did before defying this court order rises to the level of an illegal act, and I would argue that even defying this blatantly unconstitutional court order doesn't count because of the unconstitutionality of the order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I said, it's still contempt even if the order violates their First Amendment rights. They MUST obey it or be in contempt. Even if they later challenge the constitutionality of the order and WIN, they will still be guilty of contempt. The only defense would be that the court didn't have jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's just 3 I found from a very quick scan...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, thats pretty much EXACTLY what the First Amendment does. His right of privacy does NOT extend to supressing speech ABOUT him just because he doesn't like it. The Constitution also grants him NOTHING on the subject of publicity rights. Nada. Zip. Zero. You are completely wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Prove that Gawker lied about anything presented as a statement of fact in the original column.
that reveals private facts that are not newsworthy
How can we determine if certain facts do not count as ‘newsworthy’ if we cannot openly discuss those facts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You missed my point. I was giving examples of things that can trump the First Amendment: defamation, right of privacy, and right of publicity. I wasn't saying all of those necessarily apply here. I was refuting your claim that the First Amendment trumps all. It doesn't. Not even close. First Amendment rights are extensive and powerful, but they are also qualified and limited by countervailing rights.
How can we determine if certain facts do not count as ‘newsworthy’ if we cannot openly discuss those facts?
The intimate details of a sexual act he engaged in are not newsworthy. They are private facts that would be protected by his right of privacy--even if he's a celebrity. Celebrities have less privacy protection than non-celebrities, but they still have a right of privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We hold defamation as illegal because of the harm lies (lies and slander!) can do to a person’s reputation. That harm can further damage a person’s life by making it impossible for said person to, say, get a job or go out in public.
We hold incitements to violence and ‘fighting words’ as illegal because of the potential for actual physical harm to come to the person(s) on the receiving end of such speech.
We make these exceptions so that we can hold people accountable for their actions in a court of law instead of leaving them to face either no consequences or the justice of a mob.
The First Amendment, much the same as the rest of the Constitution, must adapt with the changing world while still holding true to its underlying principles. That means we must create laws that make certain kinds of provably harmful speech illegal while still protecting speech that cannot provably create harm in all possible instances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, that's easily disproved. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=369+F.Supp.2d+1291&hl=en&as_sdt=2,19&case=94880 57975772539813&scilh=0
(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.
(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.
K.S.A.21-4001.
The holding: Based upon the reasoning above, the court finds that the criminal defamation ordinance is neither unconstitutionally vague nor overbroad, and therefore, the court finds that the criminal defamation ordinance is not facially unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now that could count as defamation: you stated that I claimed the First Amendment ‘trumps all’ when I said no such thing and have never said any such thing.
I recognize the limitations of the First Amendment and consider the generally accepted limits of defamation, incitements of violence, and ‘fighting words’ as reasonable.
The ‘privacy right’ and ‘publicity right’ limits you mention don’t strike me as reasonable. How can a news organization know beforehand if information it receives will absolutely infringe on either (or both) of those rights — and even if the info does infringe, how can you expect the organization to keep a lid on it forever if said organization finds it newsworthy?
Any law that would codify those rights would have to receive the most narrowed and specific wording possible to prevent any misuse by a celebrity looking to, say, silence a critic or pull down information said celebrity finds embarassing before it becomes widespread. Unless an exception to the First Amendment makes as much sense as the three exceptions I listed above, we must tread carefully into any situation where we could chill the right to freely speak our minds.
And that brings me to your next point…
The intimate details of a sexual act he engaged in are not newsworthy.
You can judge the worth of such things in relation to how you see the world, but you don’t stand as the lone judge of ‘worthwhile’ in the world. Plenty of people may think of the details of a celebrity’s sex life as ‘newsworthy’. (I agree with you in that I don’t find it newsworthy in any way.)
Gawker, TMZ, and other such gossip rags report on such things because they know this sort of ‘news’ will catch people’s attention. As long as people pay attention to gossip-level ‘news’, it will remain ‘newsworthy’.
Oh, and don’t assume that information you don’t find ‘newsworthy’ doesn’t deserve protections under the First Amendment. I don’t consider the answer to ‘Where do I live?’ (North Carolina for the record) as ‘newsworthy’, but that doesn’t mean I have the right to shut you up if you print it on the front page of a newspaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you nuts? He's a celebrity caught on camera schtupping the wife of a close friend, of course that's newsworthy
As a public figure, anything that reflects on his image or character is automatically newsworthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A bench warrant would have to be against EVERY person in Gawker who had any knowledge (and authority) to both ignore and delete the offending article. Otherwise the Judge will be sanctioned himself.
Though ONLY in the USA can a Federal court give one order then a state based court give a totally different order due to the state based judge playing the 'butthurt' card. Especially when both claims all are based under Federal Constitutional claims or Federal Statutes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, you should always be doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: contempt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
Just because speech is in principle "free" doesn't mean that it's in unlimited supply. You cannot spend "free speech" on trivial and vulgar subjects and still have it! CHOOSE your battles.
This is a mix of vulgar and stupid that crosses the "icky" line, and that's all most people will see. I bet a jury hands Gawker a big loss simply because they don't want to see it, and don't want some nasty little kids promoting vulgarity by trumpeting what they should clearly have the common decency to avoid. Remember, kids, your mother is the type who serves on juries. Clearly Gawker likes to wallow in this stuff, and your mother will take an instant dislike, won't get to the Constitutional questions.
Gawker should have just given in reluctantly. The content of their speech here is not worth fighting over.
And it's possible that the anarchists at Gawker intend to take another bite out of worthwhile free speech. -- And YES, I can and DO judge what's worthwhile. So do all the little weenies here who tell me to shut up 'cause I'm not saying anything worthwhile! This is not worth anyone's time. If the battle lines for free speech are now down to defending publishing this, civilization is about over.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Techdirt fanboys are totally committed to free speech -- which to them means links to FREE infringing content!
15:17:15[q-290-6]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
It is not the content, but the fundamental First Amendment right.
I most certainly agree with you on that point, but, alas, that point is secondary to the fundamental issue here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
I'm making the practical case that fundamentals won't matter to a jury.
People every day decide whether to fight or not on sheerly practical grounds: here, Gawker has chosen to fight for vulgarity on lofty grounds. In my opinion, that won't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
Yeah, because nobody ever successfully defended vulgar or offensive speech in court. Nope. Not ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
speech
The content of their speech here is not worth fighting over.
‘First they came for the pornography…’
People fight for the First Amendment right to express ideas that we find offensive or vulgar specifically so that the government can’t later expand the supression of that right into other areas.
I remind you that the ACLU sued the state of Illinois on behalf of a group of Neo-Nazis for this exact reason — and won.
Just because speech is in principle "free" doesn't mean that it's in unlimited supply. You cannot spend "free speech" on trivial and vulgar subjects and still have it!
I can say whatever fucking vulgar things I want and you can’t legally do jack fucking shit about it because my fucking right to offend you doesn’t give you the right to not feel fucking offended at my speech.
Gawker didn’t fucking defame Hogan, and it didn’t fucking do or say anything illegal by posting that rundown of his sex tape or the commentary on sex tapes in general. Vulgarity doesn't serve as a barrier to free speech, and fucking shame on you for suggesting otherwise.
I bet a jury hands Gawker a big loss simply because they don't want to see it
And then Gawker gets to appeal the verdict, win said appeal specifically on constitutional grounds, and shove it in that jury’s face.
Clearly Gawker likes to wallow in this stuff, and your mother will take an instant dislike, won't get to the Constitutional questions.
At which point your mother will decide a case based on emotion instead of facts.
I can and DO judge what's worthwhile.
You can judge whether you consider certain expressions or forms of speech worth your while, but when it comes to the Constitutional protections of the First Amendment, I believe nine souls who sit on a very important bench in a very important city have a far greater right than you to judge what we should consider ‘worth’ protecting.
If the battle lines for free speech are now down to defending publishing this, civilization is about over.
The ACLU fought for Neo-Nazis specifically because it believed even offensive speech deserved Constitutional protections, and the courts agreed.
The videogame industry fought against the state of California for the right to publish violent videogames without having that right impugned by an unconstitutional fine.
Larry Flynt won a Supreme Court decision that expanded the protections afforded to parodies — for publishing an ad in Hustler that said Jerry Falwell lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse.
We defend the offensive, the vile, the vulgar, and the disturbing because we must.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
This a thousand times this...
The interesting thing is that OOTB is itself protected by this otherwise I finding him/it vulgar, vile, disturbing and offensive to my intelligent would be able to shut him up with legal shenanigans too.. Damnation!!! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
That takes guts to be done. I'd feel very uncomfortable defending such speech. But that's the nature of free speech. It allows everything. Including our trolls bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Florida Entertainment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goodbye Gawker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
o_O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use implies Hulk Hogan made a copyright claim, but how can that be if he didn't know he was being filmed. He most definitely can't be the copyright owner then? Unless filmer sold rights to him, in which case does that mean Hulk published it knowingly to web?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, if there's ever a sex vid of Brooke, THAT I would want to see!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]