GAWKER must pay $115mm to Hulk Hogan.

[Wilikon]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/18/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-jury-deliberations/index.html

---------------------------------------------
Karma...

[Moloch]

I don't see the difference...

They hold the same stance in both situations... they refuse to take down the images/video until a court orders them to

[vero]

isn't there protocol on wearing a hat in a court of law??? Skull caps should fall under the same heading, Where is the respect??

[Fortify]

I don't see any hypocrisy between the women and men on Gawker, but it sounds like a pretty scummy pretend-journalist site that needs to rely on celebrity sex tapes to keep visitor numbers high or they would simply disappear.

[Wilikon]

I don't see the difference...

They hold the same stance in both situations... they refuse to take down the images/video until a court orders them to

Exactly. Double standard from gawker/jezebel. They need to go away, to the cornfield...

Thank you Hulk!

[Moloch]

I don't see the difference...

They hold the same stance in both situations... they refuse to take down the images/video until a court orders them to

Exactly. Double standard from gawker/jezebel. They need to go away, to the cornfield...

Thank you Hulk!

How is holding the same stance in both situations a double-standard?

[wakhidNkcom]

They are planning an appeal, but they will lose, and the penalty for the damages have not been set yet, its going to get much more expensive for gawker.

[Wilikon]

They are planning an appeal, but they will lose, and the penalty for the damages have not been set yet, its going to get much more expensive for gawker.

[onlinedragon]

That video will never go offline people did share it already everywhere.

[Lethn]

That video will never go offline people did share it already everywhere.

What it will do though is send a message to publications like these that they will be making very expensive mistakes if they go invading peoples' privacy like this, freedom of expression and speech does not give you the right to invade other peoples' privacy and essentially commit illegal espionage which is what a lot of these horrid stalkerish sites do to celebrities and other public figures.

If these weren't 'news' publications but individuals they would have had court restraining orders filed against them years ago.

[wakhidNkcom]

They are planning an appeal, but they will lose, and the penalty for the damages have not been set yet, its going to get much more expensive for gawker.

Amazing.
Just thinking to post this picture gives you 100 karma.

[BARR_Official]

I don't see the difference...

They hold the same stance in both situations... they refuse to take down the images/video until a court orders them to

If you could read, you would see that a court did order them to take down the images of Hulk Hogan.  Gawker refused to obey the court order.  They say they love to see famous men naked because it's something they're not supposed to see, and it is satisfying.

At the same time, Gawker says that sites should remove nude pictures of women even without court orders, because they believe that being a woman grants a person automatic ownership of all images of her own body, and that her privacy should be respected.  They don't even name the site hosting the pictures of Jennifer Lawrence, because people looking at naked women is wrong.  Gawker refused to host those pictures on their own sites, despite the public interest being hundreds of times greater than the interest in Hulk Hogan's pictures.

When it's a man, Gawker describes it as a shameful and dirty video of him "fucking", and notes that it's not even sexy despite his "ostensibly" fit body. 

When it's a woman, it's assumed without evidence that an evil "hacker" has "leaked" these sensitive, private photos, which feature "some of the most famous women in the world" who should be revered and respected.  And plus, maybe these photos aren't even real!  But they should still take them down!  There is no vulgar mention of "rubbing their pussies" or "bending over and showing their assholes" or "they aren't even sexy like celebrities are supposed to be".

So their stances are the complete opposite in the two similar situations, with the only obvious difference being the gender of the victims.

[Mike Christ]

Good, fuck Gawker.

[Wilikon]

They are planning an appeal, but they will lose, and the penalty for the damages have not been set yet, its going to get much more expensive for gawker.

Amazing.
Just thinking to post this picture gives you 100 karma.

Thank you! 

[Wilikon]

I don't see the difference...

They hold the same stance in both situations... they refuse to take down the images/video until a court orders them to

If you could read, you would see that a court did order them to take down the images of Hulk Hogan.  Gawker refused to obey the court order.  They say they love to see famous men naked because it's something they're not supposed to see, and it is satisfying.

At the same time, Gawker says that sites should remove nude pictures of women even without court orders, because they believe that being a woman grants a person automatic ownership of all images of her own body, and that her privacy should be respected.  They don't even name the site hosting the pictures of Jennifer Lawrence, because people looking at naked women is wrong.  Gawker refused to host those pictures on their own sites, despite the public interest being hundreds of times greater than the interest in Hulk Hogan's pictures.

When it's a man, Gawker describes it as a shameful and dirty video of him "fucking", and notes that it's not even sexy despite his "ostensibly" fit body. 

When it's a woman, it's assumed without evidence that an evil "hacker" has "leaked" these sensitive, private photos, which feature "some of the most famous women in the world" who should be revered and respected.  And plus, maybe these photos aren't even real!  But they should still take them down!  There is no vulgar mention of "rubbing their pussies" or "bending over and showing their assholes" or "they aren't even sexy like celebrities are supposed to be".

So their stances are the complete opposite in the two similar situations, with the only obvious difference being the gender of the victims.

Everyone with a half functioning neuron got the image, and your excellent explanation is accessible, even to simpleton like myself...

 

[Spendulus]

I don't see the difference...

They hold the same stance in both situations... they refuse to take down the images/video until a court orders them to

If you could read, you would see that a court did order them to take down the images of Hulk Hogan.  Gawker refused to obey the court order.  They say they love to see famous men naked because it's something they're not supposed to see, and it is satisfying.

At the same time, Gawker says that sites should remove nude pictures of women even without court orders, because they believe that being a woman grants a person automatic ownership of all images of her own body, and that her privacy should be respected.  They don't even name the site hosting the pictures of Jennifer Lawrence, because people looking at naked women is wrong.  Gawker refused to host those pictures on their own sites, despite the public interest being hundreds of times greater than the interest in Hulk Hogan's pictures.

When it's a man, Gawker describes it as a shameful and dirty video of him "fucking", and notes that it's not even sexy despite his "ostensibly" fit body. 

When it's a woman, it's assumed without evidence that an evil "hacker" has "leaked" these sensitive, private photos, which feature "some of the most famous women in the world" who should be revered and respected.  And plus, maybe these photos aren't even real!  But they should still take them down!  There is no vulgar mention of "rubbing their pussies" or "bending over and showing their assholes" or "they aren't even sexy like celebrities are supposed to be".

So their stances are the complete opposite in the two similar situations, with the only obvious difference being the gender of the victims.

Everyone with a half functioning neuron got the image, and your excellent explanation is accessible, even to simpleton like myself...

 

I don't buy that crap of an attempt at explaining away they're just gay.

[Wilikon]

I don't see the difference...

They hold the same stance in both situations... they refuse to take down the images/video until a court orders them to

If you could read, you would see that a court did order them to take down the images of Hulk Hogan.  Gawker refused to obey the court order.  They say they love to see famous men naked because it's something they're not supposed to see, and it is satisfying.

At the same time, Gawker says that sites should remove nude pictures of women even without court orders, because they believe that being a woman grants a person automatic ownership of all images of her own body, and that her privacy should be respected.  They don't even name the site hosting the pictures of Jennifer Lawrence, because people looking at naked women is wrong.  Gawker refused to host those pictures on their own sites, despite the public interest being hundreds of times greater than the interest in Hulk Hogan's pictures.

When it's a man, Gawker describes it as a shameful and dirty video of him "fucking", and notes that it's not even sexy despite his "ostensibly" fit body. 

When it's a woman, it's assumed without evidence that an evil "hacker" has "leaked" these sensitive, private photos, which feature "some of the most famous women in the world" who should be revered and respected.  And plus, maybe these photos aren't even real!  But they should still take them down!  There is no vulgar mention of "rubbing their pussies" or "bending over and showing their assholes" or "they aren't even sexy like celebrities are supposed to be".

So their stances are the complete opposite in the two similar situations, with the only obvious difference being the gender of the victims.

Everyone with a half functioning neuron got the image, and your excellent explanation is accessible, even to simpleton like myself...

 

I don't buy that crap of an attempt at explaining away they're just gay.

Hmmmm...

[Wilikon]

 

[bryant.coleman]

Will they pay that amount to Hulk? They can file for bankruptcy, and close down the website. Nick Denton and Elizabeth Spiers may be worth a few million USD at the most, but for sure they are not capable of making a payment of $115,000,000. It was a good moral victory for Hulk Hogan, but I don't think that there will be any financial gain for him out of this.

[El3k0n]

Fuck yeah america!