I wont comment on her being "judge morality," but assuming Gawker's attorney's filed motions in limine against Hogans experts (I haven't seen a case in years where experts weren't the target of such motions), those should be ripe targets for at least an appeal on damages.Īrs hasn't covered the expert opinions to my knowledge, but another article did. She's Judge Morality, what a shame that's a position that doesn't exist (and thus why she gets overturned so much) Remember, the judge made her name trying to force Terri Schiavo to stay alive, and that's what led to Jeb Bush giving her a judge's bench.
So when you see him being worth more than the company, it's because people are mistakenly reporting two separate "valuations". It's only surprising if you assume that everyone reporting these things numbers know valuation from a camel's ass.Īs far as I can tell, Denton's estimated net-worth is based entirely on his ownership interest in Gawker Media, with various analysts giving ranges from $30M-350M to the company. Struggling through my life on volitle mid- to low- 5 figure incomes every year, I guess I really don't understand how this world works and the sort of accomplishments this society rewards with wealth. I look at personal wealth like that (or worse) and it boggles my mind where all this money comes from. Then again, I don't know anything personal about Denton, or really care to waste brain cells on it. I guess I just never expected that an individual could end up with so much personal wealth but the company making him that money isn't really that well off. I was a little surprised to read that the company was only worth $83 million yet the FOUNDER of the company was worth $121 million. Gawker lawyers argue the $25 million in punitive damages that was added on to the $110 million in compensatory damages would be "ruinous." The jury was told that Gawker Media was worth $83 million while its founder Nick Denton was worth $121 million. Not even Gawker is pretending the video was about anything other than salaciousness for profit.Īnyone who really cares about privacy should pray that Gawker gets smacked to blazes on this one. I don't have a problem with publicizing those videos, because, while they may be very embarrassing for a certain person or group, that person or group is engaging in conduct that is relevant-as in: likely harmful-to the public.īut it should be obvious to anyone that Hulk Hogan's sex tape, regardless of how interesting it might be or how much he talks about his sex life, did not serve any pressing civic purpose. There are instances where violating privacy is very justifiable: exposing horrible working conditions, corruption, abuse, etc. That's a distraction from the real issue, and that is not what is happening. If people think this is really about a group of random people merrily deciding what's news and what isn't, that opens the door to a forum's worth of paranoia about important news being suppressed by tyrannical death panels. I think the bigger, more pressing question is "what kind of news justifies the violation of privacy". Was it wrong for a jury to decide "what's news?"
0 kommentar(er)
