I'M GETTING MY WIN BACK FROM GAWKER, BROTHER!

[Golayitdown]

:staceyhmm:

 

[Ed MOTHERFUCKING G]

Holy fukk is that Zeke the plumber?

 

[Beautiful Bobby Eatin]

Linda finally loaned him the money for a lawyer huh?

 

[TheGreatShowtime]

Holy fukk is that Zeke the plumber?

Zeke the Plumber

But nah, it's from Tourist Trap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourist_Trap_(film)

 

[TrueEpic08]

The case could also hold implications for the First Amendment, with some in the legal community leery over the idea of a story's news value being determined by jurors, not editors.

This alone should have people hoping that Gawker wins out here, no matter what you actually think of the website. Hogan winning out here would set a terrible precedent as it relates to "permissible" journalism.

Really, all this is about is Hogan's embarrassment going behind his friend's back after saying he wouldn't and getting caught. So fukk him.

 

[Jello Biafra]

This alone should have people hoping that Gawker wins out here, no matter what you actually think of the website. Hogan winning out here would set a terrible precedent as it relates to "permissible" journalism.

Really, all this is about is Hogan's embarrassment going behind his friend's back after saying he wouldn't and getting caught. So fukk him.

That is bullshyt...the case is about Gawker posting the video and keeping it up even after being sent cease and desist notices. They didn't have to include a porn video with their supposed news story and the fact that they did is why they are being sued. This doesn't have any bearing on the First Amendment or journalistic freedoms.

 

[Rosecrans]

I hope he wins, fukk Gawker

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

This alone should have people hoping that Gawker wins out here, no matter what you actually think of the website. Hogan winning out here would set a terrible precedent as it relates to "permissible" journalism.

Really, all this is about is Hogan's embarrassment going behind his friend's back after saying he wouldn't and getting caught. So fukk him.

THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT, BUT I KIND OF NEED THE MONEY, BROTHER!

 

[LezJepzin]

His attorney at the podium looks like an old wax dummy.

I thought it was Mark Davis

 

[TrueEpic08]

That is bullshyt...the case is about Gawker posting the video and keeping it up even after being sent cease and desist notices. They didn't have to include a porn video with their supposed news story and the fact that they did is why they are being sued. This doesn't have any bearing on the First Amendment or journalistic freedoms.

Sending a C&D doesn't necessarily mean the action is illegal, it just means that one party thinks it's illegal (or wants to intimidate the recipient into believing so). Just because the letter was sent doesn't mean that the action is illegal in and of itself. You don't actually have to follow it if you don't believe the action to be illegal.

And, yes, I know why Gawker's being sued, for fukk's sake (and the issue isn't about whether they had to or not, but whether the video was directly related to the story in a way that would make it publicly relevant material). I'm talking about the knock-on effects from embarrassed celebrities/politicians/whomever seeing this and deciding that they can either force alterations in stories about themselves on their own, or take it to court to force the alteration legally. Hogan's case is one that could have effects on the freedom and discretion of the press as it relates to publishing important and publicly relevant information.

 

[So UnThotful]

yall killing it with the jokes about the lawyer

 

[Jello Biafra]

Sending a C&D doesn't necessarily mean the action is illegal, it just means that one party thinks it's illegal (or wants to intimidate the recipient into believing so). Just because the letter was sent doesn't mean that the action is illegal in and of itself. You don't actually have to follow it if you don't believe the action to be illegal.

And, yes, I know why Gawker's being sued, for fukk's sake (and the issue isn't about whether they had to or not, but whether the video was directly related to the story in a way that would make it publicly relevant material). I'm talking about the knock-on effects from embarrassed celebrities/politicians/whomever seeing this and deciding that they can either force alterations in stories about themselves on their own, or take it to court to force the alteration legally. Hogan's case is one that could have effects on the freedom and discretion of the press as it relates to publishing important and publicly relevant information.

But you are once again taking a leap from the meat of the case which is that Hogan is saying Gawker did not have the right to post the sex tape. It doesn't even get anywhere near forcing journalists to change stories. Hogans suit doesn't say that Gawker should not have run with the story; just that posting the sex tape was a bullshyt move on their part that did nothing to bolster the actual news story.CNN ran with the story and didn't seem to need to show video of Hogan fukking in order to make the story have true meaning.
And Gawker's own hypocrisy is probably going to help them lose this case because while they were smug a$$holes when posting the video along with the Hogan story they decided to take the high road when The Fappening happened and spent post after post castigating any outlet that did post those photos. So the question becomes why was it absolutely necessary for the story that we see Hulk Hogan fukking but Jennifer Lawrence't titties weren't relevant to the massive picture leak story?

Gawker is an absolute shythole of hipster c*nts who don't have a leg to stand on in this case.

 

[MushroomX]

Holy fukk is that Zeke the plumber?

Dem friendships last forever at Camp Anawanna.

 

[Grifter]

I thought it was Mark Davis

 

[thaKEAF]

If this fukks with my daily Lifehacker reading....:wtfbook:

that smiley