Hulk Hogan Awarded $115 Million in Gawker Sex Tape Case

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Hulk Hogan Awarded $115 Million in Gawker Sex Tape Case

Hulk Hogan

Gawker media, parent company of Kotaku, has been found guilty of violating Hogan's privacy by publishing a sex tape featuring the wrestler.

Legendary professional wrestler Terry "Hulk Hogan" Bollea has run into some rough times as of late, but has just caught a lucky break to the tune of $115 million. A Florida jury has ordered media conglomerate Gawker to pay Bollea the sum as a consequence for hurting his reputation by publishing a sex tape featuring the wrestler in 2012. Gawker Media is the parent company of Kotaku, Gizmodo, Lifehacker and more.

Bollea's legal team argued that Gawker violated his privacy by publishing the tape, and that it was not a "newsworthy" topic. They stated that Gawker did not contact Bollea, or the woman in the video, before publishing it on their website. "This is not only his victory today, but also anyone else who's been victimised by tabloid journalism," Bollea's lawyer David Houston said outside the courtroom.

Gawker's founder Nick Denton - and the journalist who published the article, AJ Daulerio - were held liable in the lawsuit. Their own legal team argued that while the journalist's actions were "distasteful," the concept of freedom of the press was more important to uphold.

"What's disturbing about Gawker isn't what they do in a vacuum," Bollea's lawyer Kenneth Turkel said during closing arguments. "It's how proud they are of it." Denton was "playing God over Bollea's right to privacy," he added.

Source: BBC

Permalink

That's what happens when you not only refuse a judge's order, but publish an article practically saying "suck it, judge".
They got what was coming to them.

WHAT IS THAT TERRIFYING SCREENSHOT

I've already shitposted so much about this development that I'm at a complete loss as to what else I can add.

image

Y'know, I have to say I'm real happy for Hogan in this case. Gawker publishes his sex tape illegally, refuses to take it down, then basically ridicules him with it for years. Then some ages-past racist remarks are dredged up to ruin his image, and Hogan's life seems to be going the way of Brendan Fraser.

Now he's got a cool $115+ mil and most likely a few rounds to share with his legal team. Even if Hogan isn't the best guy out of the ring, he still didn't deserve being dragged through the mud by his dick, and I'm glad that clickbait media is paying reparations. Hopefully this will lead to some precedent in relation to blatant slander/mudslinging that has no place in journalism. Trying to ruin someone's life over the fact that they have sex probably shouldn't be protected by the first amendment, at least in a business environment.

DemomanHusband:
Y'know, I have to say I'm real happy for Hogan in this case. Gawker publishes his sex tape illegally, refuses to take it down, then basically ridicules him with it for years. Then some ages-past racist remarks are dredged up to ruin his image, and Hogan's life seems to be going the way of Brendan Fraser.

Now he's got a cool $115+ mil and most likely a few rounds to share with his legal team. Even if Hogan isn't the best guy out of the ring, he still didn't deserve being dragged through the mud by his dick, and I'm glad that clickbait media is paying reparations. Hopefully this will lead to some precedent in relation to blatant slander/mudslinging that has no place in journalism. Trying to ruin someone's life over the fact that they have sex probably shouldn't be protected by the first amendment, at least in a business environment.

Its a situation where freedom of speech and right to privacy run into eachother. Stuff like this really can't be argued to be in the public interest and it was taken without consent of the individuals involved, so most are going to air on the side of the right to privacy. When you're as blatant as Gawker was about the whole situation, and are more interested in profiting off of that blurry line than actually being decent human beings, most sane people are not going to argue in your favor when it comes to those blurry lines. People and businesses like Gawker more often than not can't be trusted to show discretion when faced with blurry ethical dilemmas and this is just another example of it.

Maybe this will start to beat into the collective head of the "press" (and with Gawker, I use that term incredibly loosely) that not every aspect of a celebrity's life is fair game to be broadcast to all and sundry.

I had no idea that Kotaku is under Gawker.

And that explains so, so much about them.

The Material Sheep:

DemomanHusband:
Y'know, I have to say I'm real happy for Hogan in this case. Gawker publishes his sex tape illegally, refuses to take it down, then basically ridicules him with it for years. Then some ages-past racist remarks are dredged up to ruin his image, and Hogan's life seems to be going the way of Brendan Fraser.

Now he's got a cool $115+ mil and most likely a few rounds to share with his legal team. Even if Hogan isn't the best guy out of the ring, he still didn't deserve being dragged through the mud by his dick, and I'm glad that clickbait media is paying reparations. Hopefully this will lead to some precedent in relation to blatant slander/mudslinging that has no place in journalism. Trying to ruin someone's life over the fact that they have sex probably shouldn't be protected by the first amendment, at least in a business environment.

Its a situation where freedom of speech and right to privacy run into eachother. Stuff like this really can't be argued to be in the public interest and it was taken without consent of the individuals involved, so most are going to air on the side of the right to privacy. When you're as blatant as Gawker was about the whole situation, and are more interested in profiting off of that blurry line than actually being decent human beings, most sane people are not going to argue in your favor when it comes to those blurry lines. People and businesses like Gawker more often than not can't be trusted to show discretion when faced with blurry ethical dilemmas and this is just another example of it.

On the topic of journalists being blatant scum, the other thing that irks me is that from what I've seen about the case, Hogan didn't even have a say in being filmed, even though the encounter itself was agreed upon by all parties involved (the husband to the woman he had sex with apparently being the one who filmed it without indicating he would to the other two.)

So not only are these 'journalists' profiting off of someone else's privacy, but they're profiting off of a private moment that wasn't even intentionally recorded by its participants. Despite this, their lust for money and controversy drove them to not only publish this 'story', but to defend their 'right' to publish it all the way to court. Thankfully the jury was not made up of brain damaged baboons. I remember seeing a different user in another thread claim that it was a shame that Gawker would be hit so hard because it would affect 'good journalists' like Jason Schreier and Patrick Klepek. I almost choked on my water.

I thought this type of lawsuit doesn't work, but obviously I was wrong. Do other celebs keep it quiet or was Hogan's success an anomaly? (Tried googling it but I just get news of Hogan's victory)

Dominic Crossman:
I thought this type of lawsuit doesn't work, but obviously I was wrong. Do other celebs keep it quiet or was Hogan's success an anomaly? (Tried googling it but I just get news of Hogan's victory)

Gwaker lost because when staff members were put on the stand and they came across like total jerks. Staff members were all we can do what we want and there's nothing you can do stop us so screw you. Angry idiots saying they have the right to post a sex tape involving a 5 year old child only annoys the vast majority of the population. In most of these cases the defendants are smarter and put on a more professional face.

lacktheknack:
WHAT IS THAT TERRIFYING SCREENSHOT

Right? Notice how the spectators in the front row have black voids for eyes. It contrasts very nicely with their ghostly complexions.

Good, Maybe now gawker will conduct themselves with a little integrity. Try saying that with a straight face.

so what they did came back to bite them can't say i feel sorry for them

Several reason they got hit with the hammer of justice:

They published a part of the video, not simply reported about its existance

They mocked hogan repeatedly in articles they wrote, including insulting his endowment

They ignored a judges order to take down the video

They JOKED about publishing child porn (i think this one alone lost them the case)

They made fun about a woman who wanted a video wich depicts HER RAPE taken down in internal emails and told her to "not make a big deal out of it" refusing to take the video down. (yes.. gawker wich owns kotaku and jezebel, wich are all about mysoggyknees, pissed in a rape victims face that didnt want her rape shown to the entire world... social justice gooooooooooooo) Only after this scandal blew up in their face they removed the video but the damage to the girl in question was allready done

And im pretty sure force outing that guy from a rival company by supporting a blackmailing gay prostitute was somewhere in there too. Mind you the guy they outed had a family with children and was just like the raped girl NOT a public figure.

During the entire trial they behaved like complete entitled brats that thought they have the right to play with peoples lives without any consequences for themselves.

Their legal team must have gone up the walls in frustration on how unprofessional, arrogant and naive their clients behaved through the entire thing.

See this whole trial was NEVER about their right to report about the video, it was about them destroying lives and playing god only to then hide behind "freedom of speech" and "freedom of press". But gawker arent journalists, they are clickbait fabricators that dont care about the journalistic ethos, they only cared about clicks.

For years now it is widely known that Gawker is shit. That 80% Gawker does is gross and absolutely unnecessary. I think everyone there who published anything under the Gawker brand, including Kotaku, should have known this.

So if this really goes through and all of Gawker's sub brands get shattered, which hopefully they all will, I among many, many others will not shed a single tear about the people there losing a job. You, dear "journalists" of Gawker, contributed to this. A lot of people were very loud about how disgusting it is that you do. That Gawker is extraordinarily insulting its craft, "journalism".

And for me personally, a far leftist (from many people's PoV), I hope you all will shut the fuck up forever, never publish a word again and get paid for this. Get a job in carpentry or something.

With your political agenda, and especially the chauvinistic tone, self-righteousness and hypocrisy , you dragged the whole spectrum of this journalism-industry (amoung many, many other outlets!!!) so deep down into the mud, while at the same time propagating for a single strain of the leftist spectrum so vigorous and again chauvinistic and arrogant, that you tarnished everyone that is unwillingly associated with you.

You are one of around 4 components that produces far-right voters and thinkers. You made "lying-press" shouters right because the majority doesn't give a damn for semantics you in your arrogance bent to your liking.

Yes, you could interprete that as if Kotaku for example produced Trump-voters.

I hope Gawker burns sooner than later. Shit like this (you REALLY should read/listen to the court protocoll) is the reason why the despise for the (mainstream) press is at an all-time high.

Also, I hope that either the journos losing their jobs do a 180 in their writing or will never, ever get a job where they write their opinion.

So what does this entail for Gawker-owned sites like Kotaku?

Will they have to sell those assets off to pay off that 115 million (also holy shit guys, 115 million?), and if so, would we know of any prospective buyers?

Good. That sextape pretty much ruined Hogan's carreer and Gawker are a bunch of fucking twats.

Josh123914:
So what does this entail for Gawker-owned sites like Kotaku?

Will they have to sell those assets off to pay off that 115 million (also holy shit guys, 115 million?), and if so, would we know of any prospective buyers?

Well Gawker is listed as only having roughly 5 million in annual income so they will definitely have to liquidate assets. Even with them going to appeal they have to post a bond first for $50 million (it's supposed to be for the entirety of the judgement but it's capped at the $50 million mark) before they can.

Now comes the fun part. An appeal is not a second chance to plead your case. It is an opportunity for the loser to point out mistakes in the case procedure that could possibly have changed the ruling. Now considering that "my idiot attorney let me actually talk" doesn't count the appeal is not likely to work. In that case additional penalties can be applied for wasting time and resources.

Oh, the $115 million? That's only compensation. The jury still wants punitive penalties as well so the number will go up.

So to summarize, yes, Gawker will have to liquidate assets. How much is up for debate but it will be a large chunk either way.

RealRT:
Good. That sextape pretty much ruined Hogan's carreer and Gawker are a bunch of fucking twats.

Did he still really have a career? I thought he kinda did that himself with his racist rants awhile back and his messy divorce.

Also, everyone needs to stop spazing out about the $115 million award, it will get reduced in appeals, it always does.

Except the Appeals Court Judge Gawker is trying to get has a history of siding with them and reversing Jury decisions.

Gawker has to wither pay up the lot now, or hand over a $50million bond to appeal.
That's big money and, let's hope, it might just sink Gawker.

Worgen:

RealRT:
Good. That sextape pretty much ruined Hogan's carreer and Gawker are a bunch of fucking twats.

Did he still really have a career? I thought he kinda did that himself with his racist rants awhile back and his messy divorce.

Also, everyone needs to stop spazing out about the $115 million award, it will get reduced in appeals, it always does.

Thing is, most of that came about because he, rightfully, made a stink about them putting up the tape in the first place. And can we really deny a guy who was an icon as a persona simply because he said things in his own time? He was taken out of the hall of fame, denied his legacy, however meager it was, and everyone deserves the chance to relive past glory. And Gawker decided that if they couldn't shut him up with "FUCK THE JUDGE" articles, they'd bring him down with them using every shitty little playground trick they could. Do you really think anyone would've known or cared about him, his divorce, or shitty personality if they hadn't made it their mission to make sure everyone knew about it?

The Home Gourmet was a kiddie diddler, doesn't change the fact that he inspired half a generation to actually use their kitchens as more than frozen food storage. Paula Dean said "nigger" once twenty years ago that was released on a tape and people want to forget how she made some of the most common and looked-down upon foods in the U.S. staples of even higher-income households. Johnathan Winters spent more time in institutions than he did at home, but is widely regarded as one of the funniest men in the last century.

Yeah, he might've been a piece of shit in his private life, but professionally he was one of those global giants. Nobody I knew growing up watched wrestling and he was one of the few we knew about. Still don't know anything about wrestling, but I know some of the names and what they did. And to take him out of that when he was that big over something so incredibly minor that had nothing to do with his persona is just disgusting.

Worgen:

RealRT:
Good. That sextape pretty much ruined Hogan's carreer and Gawker are a bunch of fucking twats.

Did he still really have a career? I thought he kinda did that himself with his racist rants awhile back and his messy divorce.

Also, everyone needs to stop spazing out about the $115 million award, it will get reduced in appeals, it always does.

The racist rant was stripped from part of the sextape that Kotaku put and conveniently released the transcript of after Hogan originally sued. The people who originally released it were less than credible to begin with let alone financially incentivized to discredit Hogan before the lawsuit went into full swing. I suspect there was an aspect of truth to the off color remarks made in the privacy of his home, but to pretend that there weren't likely alterations made to the transcript to further discredit Hogan and make things look worse than they were, is being far more generous than Gawker deserves. Gawker is almost 100% responsible for the ruining of Hulk Hogan's career no ifs ands or buts. If you deserve to have your career ruined because you had a moment of poor judgment of rhetoric with a confidant, than whatever you'll find few people who can truly stand to scrutiny, but I'd suspect that most would see that as a place where you can go to vent, be unreasonable, and ultimately come out with a cooler head. Gawker is just a scummy horrid organization, and when they got nailed down for their profligate behavior, they played dirty to try and maintain their lifestyle. It didn't work, and we should be glad it didn't.

Redryhno:

Worgen:

RealRT:
Good. That sextape pretty much ruined Hogan's carreer and Gawker are a bunch of fucking twats.

Did he still really have a career? I thought he kinda did that himself with his racist rants awhile back and his messy divorce.

Also, everyone needs to stop spazing out about the $115 million award, it will get reduced in appeals, it always does.

Thing is, most of that came about because he, rightfully, made a stink about them putting up the tape in the first place. And can we really deny a guy who was an icon as a persona simply because he said things in his own time? He was taken out of the hall of fame, denied his legacy, however meager it was, and everyone deserves the chance to relive past glory. And Gawker decided that if they couldn't shut him up with "FUCK THE JUDGE" articles, they'd bring him down with them using every shitty little playground trick they could. Do you really think anyone would've known or cared about him, his divorce, or shitty personality if they hadn't made it their mission to make sure everyone knew about it?

The Home Gourmet was a kiddie diddler, doesn't change the fact that he inspired half a generation to actually use their kitchens as more than frozen food storage. Paula Dean said "nigger" once twenty years ago that was released on a tape and people want to forget how she made some of the most common and looked-down upon foods in the U.S. staples of even higher-income households. Johnathan Winters spent more time in institutions than he did at home, but is widely regarded as one of the funniest men in the last century.

Yeah, he might've been a piece of shit in his private life, but professionally he was one of those global giants. Nobody I knew growing up watched wrestling and he was one of the few we knew about. Still don't know anything about wrestling, but I know some of the names and what they did. And to take him out of that when he was that big over something so incredibly minor that had nothing to do with his persona is just disgusting.

I seem to recall it not being uncommon to remove the legacy of sports figures who get caught in things. At least recent sports figures, if they have been in the hall of fame too long then its too much trouble to remove them. Then again, I'm not into sports.

Now all I can wonder is what will the Dungeon of Doom do next to destroy Hulkamania?

Worgen:

I seem to recall it not being uncommon to remove the legacy of sports figures who get caught in things. At least recent sports figures, if they have been in the hall of fame too long then its too much trouble to remove them. Then again, I'm not into sports.

And most of them are actually nasty things like dog fighting, wife beating, burning down the orphanages of kittens, steroid use, etc. Having a bitchfit in private shouldn't disqualify one from it. And I"m still partially against it when they're disqualified with something that doesn't involve the game/sport/etc. Pete Rose it sucks for, but he bet on his own games(never threw one, played as hard as he could no matter what, but still gambled on them), and I can understand why that disqualifies him.But shit said around friends and not as a professional? Fuck. That. Shit.

Redryhno:

Worgen:

I seem to recall it not being uncommon to remove the legacy of sports figures who get caught in things. At least recent sports figures, if they have been in the hall of fame too long then its too much trouble to remove them. Then again, I'm not into sports.

And most of them are actually nasty things like dog fighting, wife beating, burning down the orphanages of kittens, steroid use, etc. Having a bitchfit in private shouldn't disqualify one from it. And I"m still partially against it when they're disqualified with something that doesn't involve the game/sport/etc. Pete Rose it sucks for, but he bet on his own games(never threw one, played as hard as he could no matter what, but still gambled on them), and I can understand why that disqualifies him.But shit said around friends and not as a professional? Fuck. That. Shit.

If they started removing people from pro wrestling hall of fames for random shit, nobody would be in the hall of fame.

Except maybe the Rock.

Everyone else is either a drug addict, racist, wife beater, or just plain batshit insane.

Worgen:

Redryhno:

Thing is, most of that came about because he, rightfully, made a stink about them putting up the tape in the first place. And can we really deny a guy who was an icon as a persona simply because he said things in his own time? He was taken out of the hall of fame, denied his legacy, however meager it was, and everyone deserves the chance to relive past glory. And Gawker decided that if they couldn't shut him up with "FUCK THE JUDGE" articles, they'd bring him down with them using every shitty little playground trick they could. Do you really think anyone would've known or cared about him, his divorce, or shitty personality if they hadn't made it their mission to make sure everyone knew about it?

The Home Gourmet was a kiddie diddler, doesn't change the fact that he inspired half a generation to actually use their kitchens as more than frozen food storage. Paula Dean said "nigger" once twenty years ago that was released on a tape and people want to forget how she made some of the most common and looked-down upon foods in the U.S. staples of even higher-income households. Johnathan Winters spent more time in institutions than he did at home, but is widely regarded as one of the funniest men in the last century.

Yeah, he might've been a piece of shit in his private life, but professionally he was one of those global giants. Nobody I knew growing up watched wrestling and he was one of the few we knew about. Still don't know anything about wrestling, but I know some of the names and what they did. And to take him out of that when he was that big over something so incredibly minor that had nothing to do with his persona is just disgusting.

I seem to recall it not being uncommon to remove the legacy of sports figures who get caught in things. At least recent sports figures, if they have been in the hall of fame too long then its too much trouble to remove them. Then again, I'm not into sports.

The actual removal from 'sports history' is usually saved for athletes/performers who have done something incredibly heinous. Say, for example, murdering their family and then dying. What Hulk did was take part in a swing and then said a few racially insensitive things during, which really is closer to a pre-fight scripted encounter in the WWE than it is a crime. I'll bet you he was disowned entirely because of the embarrassment of the sextape, with the racial insensitivity being a convenient scapegoat.

DemomanHusband:

Worgen:

Redryhno:

Thing is, most of that came about because he, rightfully, made a stink about them putting up the tape in the first place. And can we really deny a guy who was an icon as a persona simply because he said things in his own time? He was taken out of the hall of fame, denied his legacy, however meager it was, and everyone deserves the chance to relive past glory. And Gawker decided that if they couldn't shut him up with "FUCK THE JUDGE" articles, they'd bring him down with them using every shitty little playground trick they could. Do you really think anyone would've known or cared about him, his divorce, or shitty personality if they hadn't made it their mission to make sure everyone knew about it?

The Home Gourmet was a kiddie diddler, doesn't change the fact that he inspired half a generation to actually use their kitchens as more than frozen food storage. Paula Dean said "nigger" once twenty years ago that was released on a tape and people want to forget how she made some of the most common and looked-down upon foods in the U.S. staples of even higher-income households. Johnathan Winters spent more time in institutions than he did at home, but is widely regarded as one of the funniest men in the last century.

Yeah, he might've been a piece of shit in his private life, but professionally he was one of those global giants. Nobody I knew growing up watched wrestling and he was one of the few we knew about. Still don't know anything about wrestling, but I know some of the names and what they did. And to take him out of that when he was that big over something so incredibly minor that had nothing to do with his persona is just disgusting.

I seem to recall it not being uncommon to remove the legacy of sports figures who get caught in things. At least recent sports figures, if they have been in the hall of fame too long then its too much trouble to remove them. Then again, I'm not into sports.

The actual removal from 'sports history' is usually saved for athletes/performers who have done something incredibly heinous. Say, for example, murdering their family and then dying. What Hulk did was take part in a swing and then said a few racially insensitive things during, which really is closer to a pre-fight scripted encounter in the WWE than it is a crime. I'll bet you he was disowned entirely because of the embarrassment of the sextape, with the racial insensitivity being a convenient scapegoat.

I thought they mostly did it for steroid use and match fixing?

Worgen:

DemomanHusband:

Worgen:

I seem to recall it not being uncommon to remove the legacy of sports figures who get caught in things. At least recent sports figures, if they have been in the hall of fame too long then its too much trouble to remove them. Then again, I'm not into sports.

The actual removal from 'sports history' is usually saved for athletes/performers who have done something incredibly heinous. Say, for example, murdering their family and then dying. What Hulk did was take part in a swing and then said a few racially insensitive things during, which really is closer to a pre-fight scripted encounter in the WWE than it is a crime. I'll bet you he was disowned entirely because of the embarrassment of the sextape, with the racial insensitivity being a convenient scapegoat.

I thought they mostly did it for steroid use and match fixing?

Hoo boy, if they did it just for that in the WWE, there'd be no WWE. They play by wholly different rules there.

DemomanHusband:
The actual removal from 'sports history' is usually saved for athletes/performers who have done something incredibly heinous. Say, for example, murdering their family and then dying. What Hulk did was take part in a swing and then said a few racially insensitive things during, which really is closer to a pre-fight scripted encounter in the WWE than it is a crime. I'll bet you he was disowned entirely because of the embarrassment of the sextape, with the racial insensitivity being a convenient scapegoat.

WWE's HoF is a minefield of politics. Sunny did a sextape recently; still in the HoF despite being an all round bitch and addict. Chyna did a couple of sex tapes a while back, is arguably mentally unstable, yet is blackballed from the HoF because of heat with HHH. Go figure.

Deshin:

DemomanHusband:
The actual removal from 'sports history' is usually saved for athletes/performers who have done something incredibly heinous. Say, for example, murdering their family and then dying. What Hulk did was take part in a swing and then said a few racially insensitive things during, which really is closer to a pre-fight scripted encounter in the WWE than it is a crime. I'll bet you he was disowned entirely because of the embarrassment of the sextape, with the racial insensitivity being a convenient scapegoat.

WWE's HoF is a minefield of politics. Sunny did a sextape recently; still in the HoF despite being an all round bitch and addict. Chyna did a couple of sex tapes a while back, is arguably mentally unstable, yet is blackballed from the HoF because of heat with HHH. Go figure.

Hell, The Ultimate Warrior was a public speaker for a while with delightful speeches containing phrases such as "Queering doesn't make the world work", and they named a damn award after him a few years back.

The thing about the WWE Hall of Fame is that as long as you don't cause the company bad PR, they really don't care about removing you. The only reason Hogan, arguably the single most well-known wrestler of the modern age and an instrumental part of the WWE's rise to nigh-monopoly of the American wrestling industry, got kicked out is because of the massive amounts of negative PR it caused. I can pretty much guarantee that he'll be back there somewhere within the next decade once this has all blown over.

I mean, hell, Warrior came back with zero issue, Stone Cold's been convicted for domestic abuse, and Jimmy Snuka is currently on trial for the death of his girlfriend 32 years back for which charges were somehow never pressed (He was removed from the Hall of Fame once he was arrested last year, but the company damn well knew about this before that). Which isn't even going into things like Randy Savage's psychologically unhealthy relationship with Elizabeth Hulette and Pat Patterson's alleged sexual misconduct in the 90s.

jurnag12:
I can pretty much guarantee that he'll be back there somewhere within the next decade once this has all blown over.

I'd wager sooner rather than later. All Hogan needs to do is his usual rounds of morning talk show spots (which he will, celebrating his victory) and tell the world he's learned his lesson. Cry a crocodile tear or two behind his sunglasses, and that'll be enough good publicity for WWE to give him a pass.

Deshin:

jurnag12:
I can pretty much guarantee that he'll be back there somewhere within the next decade once this has all blown over.

I'd wager sooner rather than later. All Hogan needs to do is his usual rounds of morning talk show spots (which he will, celebrating his victory) and tell the world he's learned his lesson. Cry a crocodile tear or two behind his sunglasses, and that'll be enough good publicity for WWE to give him a pass.

And it should be. We all said some shit in private we would never say in public. Hogan was angry when he said these things IN PRIVATE.

Jesus, its not like he partook in a KKK rally. The shit he said in a fit of anger IN PRIVATE should have never been aired in the first place.

But the "leak" of him daring to use the word "nigger" made for some good shitflinging and was a blatant attempt by gawker to discredit and damage hogan before the court and the public eye.

Hogan is as much as a racist then anyone else who got pissed at people who fit racial stereotypes. Just because hogan might not be the "nicest" guy doesnt mean he deserved what happened to him just because Gawker things they are gods and can nilly willy ruin lives and careers, something they have done again and again and again time after time.

It was about nigh time someone with the necesary influence and money took them to court because many of the people whose lives they ruined couldnt do it since in this day and age only the rich and famous seem to be able to afford justice... and gawker knew that, so they tried their damnest to ruin hogans career in order to intimidate him into stopping.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here