Yeah. The sex tape is verifiably true.

You might have a point if they published an article saying hulk hogan had sex with whoever was in the tape.

I struggle to understand how they could possibly have not met that standard?

From their "we're not going to take down the article, only the video" post, linked elsewhere:

> the Hon. Pamela A.M. Campbell, a circuit court judge in Pinellas County, Fla., issued an order compelling Gawker to remove from the internet a video of Hulk Hogan fucking his friend's ex-wife, as well as a 1,400-word narrative of the video written by former Gawker editor A.J. Daulerio and 466 user-submitted comments

(my emphasis)

So, they did publish an article saying Hulk Hogan had sex with the person in the tape, and substantiated it with an excerpt of the tape.

They posted the video and didn't take it down when ordered by a judge.

What are you talking about? They did take down the video when ordered by a judge. They refused to take down the accompanying 1400-word article.

http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...

> Despite her misapprehension that the issue at hand was "only about the tape," Campbell has seen clear to order us to disappear a 1,400-word article—words composed and published by Gawker Media editorial employees—simply because Hulk Hogan didn't like it.

> A lawful order from a circuit court judge is a serious thing. While we vehemently disagree with Campbell's order with respect to the video itself, we have chosen to take it down pending our appeal.

> But the portion of the order compelling us to remove the entirety of Daulerio's post—his words, his speech—is grossly unconstitutional. We won't take it down.

"Mr. Chieffo, a veteran entertainment lawyer, usually responds with what he calls "the facts of life" in the never-ending battle between these publications and the famous people". Why

1. That Hogan had sex with his friend's wife

2. That he was taped

are not "facts of life"?

Don't think the issue is that Gawker reported that Hogan was taped having sex with his friend's wife.

No, the issue is that they literally wrote a headline bragging about ignoring a court order to take it down[0].

Whether or not the lawsuit itself was justified (though the jury ultimately did thing so), it's pretty stupid to ignore a court order. It's even more appalling to brag about it the way they did. Quite frankly, they kind of got off easy, since the consequences could have been a lot worse. People literally go to jail for behavior like that. Look at Kim Davis, who was jailed for contempt.

[0] http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...

I don't understand. Why did gawker fight for this? Was there any big ideal behind it or just for the lulz? I can understand if it was the President instead of hulk Hogan, but it's just a private individual in his private premises doing perfectly legal things. Why would you publish this and then fight the judicial system over it?

The biggest reason is that Gawker had a court order not to release the tape, and then did anyway.

That's a very different issue than publishing a story.

No, they had a court order to take down the post, including the excerpt of the video that they posted, and they only took down the video (and, on appeal, was found to be in the right).

I'm very glad that a lot of people here have zero chance to have any political influence, ever.