In a St. Petersburg courtroom, it took a jury six hours to deliberate whether Gawker Media invaded former pro-wrestler Hulk Hogan’s privacy when the organization posted a sex tape of the celebrity on its website in 2012.
And in a unanimous decision, Hogan, whose legal name is Terry Bollea, was awarded $115 million in the suit he brought against the gossip website.
Gawker posted a one minute and 41-second edited video of Hogan having sex with Heather Clem, ex-wife of Tampa-based radio host Todd “Bubba the Love Sponge” Clem.
Clem recorded the sex tape of the former wrestler and his then-wife, but Hogan said he didn’t know he was being filmed.
The damages awarded to the ex-wrestler were for economic harm and emotional distress from the video, which Gawker said was sent to Gawker anonymously.
The media organization ran the video with written commentary by the site’s former editor, Albert Daulerio, who was named in the lawsuit as well as Nick Denton, Gawker’s founder.
During the proceeding, Denton was asked to read Daulerio’s commentary to the courtroom, which included graphic descriptions of the video.
Clem was scheduled to testify as a witness for Gawker but wiggled out, pleading the Fifth Amendment.
The radio host had made multiple conflicting statements about the incident and his attorney argued Clem could be sued for perjury if he was made to take the stand.
The jury was not only shown the edited version of the video, but also an old website advertisement that displayed Hogan on a wrecking ball in a “t-back thong,” a parody of a Miley Cyrus music video.
Bollea clarified, saying the man on the wrecking ball was Hulk Hogan – his T.V. personality – and that the sex tape showed his private, “real-self,” Terry Bollea.
The jury sympathized with Bollea, awarding him $15 million more than his original $100 million request.
Courtroom theatrics aside, this case speaks to a problem we in the Internet Age fall into constantly: Privacy.
Everyday citizens have a modicum of protection against public exposure of their private lives. But for a public figure (especially one who has a history of exposing his private and sexual life), to not only win the case, but receive more money than originally sought seems like a significant reversal of First Amendment rights.
Public figures can not be exempt from content that they deem “defamatory.”
Denton said Gawker is already planning to appeal the decision in a statement to the press.
“Given key evidence and the most important witness were both improperly withheld from this jury, we all knew the appeals court will need to resolve the case,” he said, adding, “we expect to win this case ultimately.”
Gawker’s defense claimed the media company was well within its First Amendment rights to post the video, and that penalization would only lead to other celebrities using the court system to limit anything they may find personally offensive.
Bollea’s prosecution claimed Gawker was a slanderous organization that only cared about financial gain and disregarded his well-being upon posting the material.
Remember this, the freedom of the press directly affects the freedom of public knowledge.
We must tread carefully.
Information from the Tampa Bay Times was used in this report.
