Originally Posted by Piobaire
What's the dubious claim? That the sex tape itself was not "news?" The existence of a sex tape as being news is obviously not controversial but Hulk's technique is news? That one I'm not so ready to buy.
I'm reluctant to comment too much on it because I don't know all the facts, but my understanding is that Gawker posted a poor quality excerpt that showed about ten seconds of sex.
I think we can mostly agree that the existence of the tape and the event itself are newsworthy -- Hogan's "best friend" is a radio celebrity himself, and he's very publicly having his wife have sex with various celebrities, then secretly recording it.
Even assuming the tape itself is off limits, what's the harm suffered by the release of ten seconds of low-resolution, blurry, infrared sex tape (in the light of everything else which is legitimately newsworthy, and, I assume, the video's distribution by others?) -- $110 million dollars (plus another 30 or so for punitive damages)? I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying that most people would gladly let Gawker publish a full length video of them screwing that woman, in 4k HD, for a tiny fraction of that. And Hogan's career was pretty much over by that point anyway. It's not like he suffered any real financial loss from this after all the other stuff he's done.
The verdict is outrageous.