Support NeoGAF

[Kobun Heat]

See, even the people defending Patrick don't get it -- you can't even write back an email with answers, additional information, reactions, etc. but then say "Oh and by the way this is off the record." Off the record is not a one-way street. It's a negotiated stance that has to be agreed upon by everyone involved before the exchange of information takes place.

Otherwise, you either don't respond to the email or you say "No comment."

 

[Brakke]

I don't care if it was sarcastic or in a joking manner. The guy during his deposition made a vile comment about child porn in relation to the case and his boundaries regarding breaching someones privacy. When you are defending yourself with the reasoning as important as first amendment rights for invading someones privacy and you make some flip comment involving child porn relating to the case I don't blame the jury for being disgusted thinking this kind of behaviour involving a celebrity can lead to that kind of stuff.

But that's ridiculous. You should blame a jury for deciding a case on feelings rather than fact. The trial asks "did Gawker break the law and injure Hulkster?", not "are Gawker unpleasant?". The Whole Thing about being on a jury is to set aside feelings -- such as disgust -- and consider facts. The facts are that Gawker didn't publish child porn.

So yeah. The comment is clearly distasteful -- you go farther to "vile", which: ok, sure -- but ultimately irrelevant. And probably not even sincerely held. So why did it even make it into the trial, I do not know.

Understandable and I agree with you. I tend to lean in Patrick's favour but it's obvious he took some glee in pushing this woman's buttons after her, other people and journalists jumped on him on Twitter so that is the one aspect that is slightly off putting.

But yeah those are the rules of the game for sure.

Where did you see "glee"?

 

[The Adder]

See, even the people defending Patrick don't get it -- you can't even write back an email with answers, additional information, reactions, etc. but then say "Oh and by the way this is off the record." Off the record is not a one-way street. It's a negotiated stance that has to be agreed upon by everyone involved before the exchange of information takes place.

Otherwise, you either don't respond to the email or you say "No comment."

She wouldn't have any real ground to stand on, but at the very least there'd be SOMETHING to play the victim over.

 

[Weltall Zero]

oh thank god he isn't a terrible racist. he's just your run of the mill racist. whew, that was a close one.

Not defending Hogan, but there is actually a difference, believe or not. There are shadows of gray, and when we group people who might have made an unfortunate comment they since regret together with neonazis and burn them all at the metaphorical stake, we're not helping the everyman to side with us.

One of the biggest sources of fuel for the SJW fire is the perception that socially progressive people are all equally intolerant in their naming and shaming of others for the smallest infraction, which often come from ignorance. I know it's exhausting to explain the issues over and over, which is why it's important to be able to tell apart those that genuinely are misinformed about racial minorities, gay people, transexual people, etc. from those that don't really care and would be a waste of time and energy better spent elsewhere.

Again, I don't claim to know Hogan well enough (or at all) to tell which one of the two it is in his particular case. But not immediately assuming the worst out of people is not a bad policy.

 

[Joni]

Good thing he didn't do that.

You have heard of that 'off the record' thingie? Can't quote people if people say they don't want to be quoted ethic-wise. It is the type of thing they only ignored because they simply don't care about her, she holds no value for them when it comes to future stories.
http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/human-sources/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_(journalism) , http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/mar/17/pressandpublishing1
She didn't want to be quoted, so don't quote her. Such a simple rule.

 

[KJRS_1993]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/19/hulk-hogan-lawsuit-win-takedown-gawker

I thought this would be kind of relevant to the topic in the OP, it's about Gawker as a whole though rather than Kotaku specifically.

Denton’s refusal to do so now stands as a fateful decision that could determine whether the 49-year-old publisher goes down as both creator and destroyer of Gawker Media. If the judge in the case imposes as $50m bond on Gawker, which its representatives say it cannot pay, the site and its nine ancillary publications could quickly collapse.

 

[The Adder]

You have heard of that 'off the record' thingie? Can't quote people if people say they don't want to be quoted ethic-wise. It is the type of thing they only ignored because they simply don't care about her, she holds no value for them when it comes to future stories.
http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/human-sources/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_(journalism) , http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/mar/17/pressandpublishing1
She didn't want to be quoted, so don't quote her. Such a simple rule.

You should actually read your links, then read how events unfolded, then read your links again, then read posts 946, 952, and 954, and then realize you decided to speak without knowing what you were talking about.

The thing you say when you don't want to be quoted is "no comment"

The thing you do if you want to comment but don't want to be quoted is come to an agreement with the journalist that your statement is off the record before commenting.

The thing you do if you want to do all of this wrong but then still play victim is declare something is off the record in the very same e-mail you comment without actually coming to an agreement.

She, as far as I know, failed to do any of these things.

 

[Hesh]

What? He literally just said thanks for the supportive comments. How the hell did you infer that from his post?

From the link that he posted and recommended reading. The article is clearly pro-Gawker/anti-ruling so basically between the lines he's saying that this isn't over, not to lose hope, etc since he can't actually comment on the litigation. I'm saying he shouldn't cling to the present since it means denying justice just because he enjoys his current job so much. Losing your job sucks, especially one you enjoy greatly, but to put your personal satisfaction over the justice of others is a bit selfish.

Hogan is a local celebrity and is a member of the community. Gawker is a "vicious media blog" up in New York. Look at all the hate for Wall Street right now in politics. That's the same kind of thing you're seeing here.

No matter what you think of Gawker, they've got legal precedent on their side. 1st amendment decisions like this aren't incredibly nuanced. Hogan is a celebrity and has made his sex life a part of his public persona. I know it seems shitty, but that opens him up to vulnerable to something like the sex tape being protected under the 1st amendment.

Now, Gawker writers being snarky during the trial or deposition? That's just a bad idea no matter who you are.

I know the two states differ in political climates, but I don't really think this is a case of misunderstood journalists being trounced by country bumpkins disapproving of some brash city slickers. The basis of the case is about the profiting off someone else's invasion of privacy and misery, and going further, said profiting wasn't done as an act of revenge and was done to someone seemingly for no reason at all (other than implied sociopathy, really). I just don't see a New York jury interpreting the case any different than the Florida jury.

 

[JackDT]

Can someone provide me with a reputable article or shortly explain what happened with Jamie Walton and Patrick Klepek?

I tried to look it up myself but all I find is GG related stuff like posts on KotakuInAction which I don't trust at all.

I read this article "The Ugly New Front In The Neverending Video Game Culture War" by Patrick Klepek where Jamie Walton is mentioned but I still don't understand the context of Jamie Walton's recent tweet to him regarding the misquoting. Was the part about her in the article the misquote she's referring to? And if so, what was it supposed to be? Is it a misquote at all?

She responded with the quote in the article, basically a longer-winded way of saying 'no comment' -- Patrick quoted that. That's what she's mad at. Really silly.

If you actually only want the article to say 'no comment' just say 'no comment'.

The most ironic part is that the part that Patrick quoted... That's the part that made my sympathetic to her, it seemed like she didn't know what she was getting into when she tried to get the Nintendo girl fired. That's what she's mad at? What?

 

[Brakke]

From the link that he posted and recommended reading. The article is clearly pro-Gawker/anti-ruling so basically between the lines he's saying that this isn't over, not to lose hope, etc since he can't actually comment on the litigation. I'm saying he shouldn't cling to the present since it means denying justice just because he enjoys his current job so much. Losing your job sucks, especially one you enjoy greatly, but to put your personal satisfaction over the justice of others is a bit selfish.

But whether or not this verdict represents "justice" is a reasonable point of contention. The higher courts *have been* sympathetic to Gawker's position. You're reading a selfishness into Jason that isn't obviously there.

"because he enjoys his current job so much" is one possible reason to stick with Gawker through this litigation, but it isn't the only possible reason.

 

[Nephtis]

From the link that he posted and recommended reading. The article is clearly pro-Gawker/anti-ruling so basically between the lines he's saying that this isn't over, not to lose hope, etc since he can't actually comment on the litigation. I'm saying he shouldn't cling to the present since it means denying justice just because he enjoys his current job so much. Losing your job sucks, especially one you enjoy greatly, but to put your personal satisfaction over the justice of others is a bit selfish.

He tends to do that. Whenever there's any controversy surrounding Kotaku he gets super passionate about defending it - even if he doesn't agree with what's going on. He'll give you troves of articles that are clearly slanted towards the company he works for.

I mean, it's ok to do that. But what I'm saying is I would hardly consider taking his argument in anything that's going on. It's best to just wait for some other articles that are a bit more neutral - The Guardian and CNN have made some pretty good articles regarding this ruling.

Also to be fair, Brakke makes a reasonable point, too.

 

[dreamlongdead]

I dislike Kotaku, but it does suck that people may potentially lose their jobs.

 

[JackDT]

Anyone have any links to examples of investigative game journalism on Kotaku (as opposed to critique, ads, and reposts [of media and news])?

I'll wait.

http://kotaku.com/the-messy-true-story-behind-the-making-of-destiny-1737556731

http://kotaku.com/metacritic-matters-how-review-scores-hurt-video-games-472462218

http://kotaku.com/crunch-time-why-game-developers-work-such-insane-hours-1704744577

http://kotaku.com/quality-assured-what-it-s-really-like-to-play-games-fo-1720053842

http://kotaku.com/how-lucasarts-fell-apart-1401731043

http://kotaku.com/5986239/the-rise-and-fall-of-superdae-a-most-unusual-video-game-hacker

http://kotaku.com/the-curse-of-kiseki-how-one-of-japans-biggest-rpgs-bar-1740055631

http://kotaku.com/the-real-stories-behind-e3-s-glossy-game-demos-1710169104

http://kotaku.com/how-a-small-game-studio-almost-made-it-big-1696997142

Kotaku funds that stuff with listicles. Nobody else is paying for long form writing that requires weeks or months of research. Nobody else is willing burn the publisher like Kotaku risks with the Destiny article.

And why would they? Gaming 'journalism' as a industry is going to youtubers bringing in millions of revenue (there probably some individual youtubers with more revenue than all of Kotaku) and you won't find them paying for long gaming articles that requires lots of boring research with all their revenue.

Serious question, what gaming sites do you read that do gaming journalism like the Destiny article? I really don't see much of it. Polygon does the occasional long form research article. The only other regular ones I can think of are a few people on Patreon that nobody knows of.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Intriguing. In the UK Gawker would be toast but this can actually go their way here. The Federal Courts up to and especially the Supreme Court are very much defenders of the 1st amendment so this can run quite a bit longer. Or, if they are still needed to pay $50 million up front, maybe not. One for the legal buffs.

The thing is though I dont see how releasing the sex tape of another person is covered under the 1st amendment. Its disgusting. Just like when they outed that exec(?) for being gay. Its fucked up, lowest of the low trash that can be done to someone.

 

[Kama_1082]

wow some people are just.....

Good on her. Patrick deserves every single bit of that.

 

[palpabl_purpura]

Well, they could survive if the business is set up right. If they function from a LLC or corporation with limited reserves, essentially Hogan could only get a small portion of that 115 mil. The main assets that the company controls could also be overseas, and this could offer protection as well.

 

[Smushroomed]

I dislike Kotaku, but it does suck that people may potentially lose their jobs.

Not if they specifically took a job at kotaku to make click-bait pseudo sjw articles in order to generate clicks

Did they think you could do this forever?

You reap what you sow

 

[samn]

Good on her. Patrick deserves every single bit of that.

From what I've been reading just now, she failed to negotiate and agree the 'off the record' status before giving him information. Standard practise is that 'off the record' status must be made clear and agreed to by both parties before any communication can be considered off the record.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Good on her. Patrick deserves every single bit of that.

1. It's been pointed out that she was not off the record, and that in fact she did not establish in advance that her statement may not be used.

2. She's a consistent GamerGate ally who tried to get someone fired from NoA based on GG's claims of supporting pedophilia by that person (ironic that GG cares so much about pedophilia when it defends actual child porn).

Not if they specifically took a job at kotaku to make click-bait pseudo sjw articles in order to generate clicks

Did they think you could do this forever?

You reap what you sow

Seriously, it sounds like this post was made by a GG post auto-generator lol. Who specifically took a job to make clickbait articles? What is an SJW article? What articles are proven to have been "SJW" for the sake of generating clicks?

 

[Nanashrew]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1192693

Read this post in particular.

The kiwifarms link doesn't work anymore because after it was found out, the mods of that site quickly deleted it.

The archive is here but i'm getting a 503 error: https://web.archive.org/web/2015031...eads/message-from-the-real-jamie-walton.7726/


Basically, she's a victim advocate that actively distances herself from social justice. She has also stalked people like Brianna Wu. She talks with GGers and familiar with their moderates and their articles. She's admitted to being wrong in the past by her own overblown reactions by he said she said without any research of her own.

She's just overall terrible and terrible at her job. The company is named after Bruce Wayne, and she is the worst possible detective and vigilante seen talking and working with more villains than any heroes.

 

[A Link to the Past]

The kiwifarms link doesn't work anymore because after it was found out, the mods of that site quickly deleted it.

The archive is here but i'm getting a 503 error: https://web.archive.org/web/2015031...eads/message-from-the-real-jamie-walton.7726/


Basically, she's a victim advocate that actively distances herself from social justice. She has also stalked people like Brianna Wu. She talks with GGers and familiar with their moderates and their articles. She's admitted to being wrong in the past by her own overblown reactions by he aid she said without any research of her own.

She's just over terrible and terrible at her job. The company is named after Bruce Wayne, and she is the worst possible detective and vigilante seen talking and working with more villains than any heroes.

Honestly, it seems like someone else could better service in that position than her. She's like if you took all of the Batman comics where he works alongside the Joker and got rid of everything else.

 

[samuraidino]

I don't like kotaku anymore. I did once, hell it used to be my homepage at one stage, but after redesigns and changes to their output and style I ditched it completely.

But, i do think it's a shame that Gawkers actions are likely going to result in it shutting down. They weren't my thing anymore, and some of the shit they posted that iv glanced at over the years have caused groans and cringing, but to see it go out as a result of the actions of gawker will be a poor ending for them.

Don't get me wrong,Gawker deserved this though,and I will happily celebrate their likely demise. It's just a shame it effects others who are fairly unrelated to it.

 

[Gattsu25]

Ouch. Context?

She talked to a journalist before saying that she wanted to speak off the record, didn't directly say that she wanted to be off the record at any point during their correspondence, and then got annoyed when she was quoted in an article.

I only know her from her work trying to get the Nintendo PR agent fired at the behest of gamergate. At that time, she tried to claim that she never heard of gamergate before but she has posted on GG forums in a now deleted forum thread.

 

[PersonAndStuff]

Man, apparently I missed a bunch of GG/SJW bullshit fighting. And I'm very happy I did. I'm getting headaches just reading about this stuff, months after it occurred.

 

[Stevey]

Good.
Fuck Gawker for publishing it in the first place.
If you had any morals you would quit over shit like this.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

pseudo sjw articles in order to generate clicks

wtf is going on here?

 

[Two Words]

And how do you know how he behaves privately? We are talking about one incident here taken out of context. Or are you saying that this is how he always behaves? Again I'm not defending him but his privacy. People tend to do and say really stupid things when upset. That is all. Good for you if you have lived a life where you can't find two minutes of something that would make you look like an idiot.

Somebody doesn't go around calling black people "niggers" like that in one context and have a different view of black people in other contexts. The guy has issues with black people having relations with his daughter. Plain and simple. That speaks to his character. It doesn't speak to what he says when he's angry. It speaks to what he actually thinks.

 

[Gattsu25]

Man, apparently I missed a bunch of GG/SJW bullshit fighting. And I'm very happy I did. I'm getting headaches just reading about this stuff, months after it occurred.

I'm familiar with who represents GG but what is a SJW?

From what I can discern, they are people that are against discrimination.

 

[WrenchNinja]

wtf is going on here?

Gaters coming out of the woodworks to gloat about people losing jobs. Guess the Microsoft party thread wasn't enough to weed them all out.

 

[The Adder]

She talked to a journalist before saying that she wanted to speak off the record, didn't directly say that she wanted to be off the record at any point during their correspondence, and then got annoyed when she was quoted in an article.

I only know her from her work trying to get the Nintendo PR agent fired at the behest of gamergate. At that time, she tried to claim that she never heard of gamergate before but she has posted on GG forums in a now deleted forum thread.

Bringing this whole thing full circle back to my original statement:

I read her as the kind of person who only does good because the thing she fights effected her personally. Deep down in the depths of her soul she's a shitty person with a good cause.

 

[trebbble]

Gawkergate

It's about ethics in tabloid journalism

 

[Haines]

He actually has a new weekly podcast, https://match3.simplecast.fm/

Cool

 

[PersonAndStuff]

I'm familiar with who represents GG but what is a SJW?

From what I can discern, they are people that are against discrimination.

Do you actually not know? SJW stands for Social Justice Warrior. It's generally used in a negative way, by the other side, implying that they have taken the cause to a crazy extreme.

 

[The Real Abed]

Will Patrick return to Giant Bomb now?

Poor guy literally just moved. I doubt he'll want to move again. It's the only reason I wouldn't want Kotaku to close. Unless there's another big gaming website in the same area he could go to.

Scoops needs to be the next YouTube star ASAP.

I already watch his stuff every day. He puts all his stuff on YouTube. His Mario Maker Mornings stuff is great. He plays user created levels and occasionally spends hours and days on a single level whenever Dan Rykert creates one.

wow some people are just.....

What's the context to this? How can anyone actually hate Patrick?

 

[kamineko]

I feel like we need a new post-GG bingo card.... for posts that are totally not like old GG posts

Some stuff would stay the same, of course, like unironic use of "sjw"
JW may be close to earning her own square
"outrage"

OT, Gawker has made many reprehensible decisions. I guess it was only a matter of time

Hopefully the people who are impacted by Gawker's bad choices land on their feet

 

[RadarScope1]

Can someone provide me with a reputable article or shortly explain what happened with Jamie Walton and Patrick Klepek?

I tried to look it up myself but all I find is GG related stuff like posts on KotakuInAction which I don't trust at all.

I read this article "The Ugly New Front In The Neverending Video Game Culture War" by Patrick Klepek where Jamie Walton is mentioned but I still don't understand the context of Jamie Walton's recent tweet to him regarding the misquoting. Was the part about her in the article the misquote she's referring to? And if so, what was it supposed to be? Is it a misquote at all?

Great article by Patrick. I don't follow this shit any more because it's exhausting and tears down what little faith I still have in humanity, so I hadn't read that one. Really sad. It does appear Walton is a bit off. She seems like someone who operates with a chip on her shoulder, which I guess is understandable, but it leads to weird things over time. Not everyone who works for good causes are good, sane people. There are a lot of people who fight for animal rights, for example, that are just goddamn insane.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Poor guy literally just moved. I doubt he'll want to move again. It's the only reason I wouldn't want Kotaku to close. Unless there's another big gaming website in the same area he could go to.


I already watch his stuff every day. He puts all his stuff on YouTube. His Mario Maker Mornings stuff is great. He plays user created levels and occasionally spends hours and days on a single level whenever Dan Rykert creates one.


What's the context to this? How can anyone actually hate Patrick?

Same reason why GamerGaters hate him

Spoiler

She's a GamerGater

For an actual answer however, someone can supply you a link with a fairly detailed description

 

[Cruxist]

I know the two states differ in political climates, but I don't really think this is a case of misunderstood journalists being trounced by country bumpkins disapproving of some brash city slickers. The basis of the case is about the profiting off someone else's invasion of privacy and misery, and going further, said profiting wasn't done as an act of revenge and was done to someone seemingly for no reason at all (other than implied sociopathy, really). I just don't see a New York jury interpreting the case any different than the Florida jury.

I guess I'm saying it's less "hyuck hyuck Florida" and more, "they're going after OUR guy." I honestly think Gawker wins the case in most juries, just not Hogan's hometown. Hence why they've been prepared to appeal the entire time.

 

[The Adder]

Poor guy literally just moved. I doubt he'll want to move again. It's the only reason I wouldn't want Kotaku to close. Unless there's another big gaming website in the same area he could go to.


I already watch his stuff every day. He puts all his stuff on YouTube. His Mario Maker Mornings stuff is great. He plays user created levels and occasionally spends hours and days on a single level whenever Dan Rykert creates one.


What's the context to this? How can anyone actually hate Patrick?

Read post 976 for the quick and dirty.

 

[jschreier]

Another article with some important clarifications: http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/19/media/hulk-hogan-gawker/index.html

 

[Dunkley]

I'm familiar with who represents GG but what is a SJW?

From what I can discern, they are people that are against discrimination.

A Social Justice Warrior, or a SJW, is as far as I know a degrading term for activists who fight for political correctness.

According to GamerGate, tolerance, equality and political correctness are tainting the integrity of the video games scene because apparently any game that isn't following their supposed status quo where games are male power fantasies and degrade women and minorities in some way or the other, or even worse, have homosexual characters, are SJW games, and everyone who thinks the games scene is mean to any sort of group is considered a SJW too.

Basically, if you have a critical opinion on any character's depiction, you might be a SJW and are a threat to GamerGate because your opinion might cause developers to censor themselves, since GamerGate totally doesn't believe people might do that on their own accord and instead it's those damn SJWs ruining everything. You are generalized to be a person upset by everything who's single goal in their life is to ruin the fun of everyone else, and are the scapegoat for GamerGate to blame everything "wrong" about today's gaming scene on.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if down the line they got delusional enough to blame broken releases and games as a service releases on SJWs, if they aren't doing that already.

 

[SolidSnakex]

That "four" comment was distasteful certainly but I get it. Gawker weren't on trial for publishing child porn. Daulerio got asked a bullshit irrelevant question, saw through it, and expressed his disdain in a sarcastic way. Obviously that was poorly considered -- he said an ugly thing and let the jury feel like Gawker *were* on trial for publishing child porn.

That's why it's whack that this case was tried in Florida state court. Gawker's probably right on the facts, but they're so, so totally wrong on the attitude that they didn't stand a chance against this jury.

This case hits the most uncomfortable spot where I probably prefer a world without Gawker (the flagship site anyway), but I don't think I'm on board with this case being how we get there.

I don't think anyone felt that Gawker were publishing child porn. Hogan's lawyer didn't even frame it that way when he brought it up in court. Here's the entire exchange

https://youtu.be/-Pr8S44o6N4?t=258

He uses Daulerio's own words to dismantle him over several things. And it's never framed as "Gawker posts child porn".

 

[Joni]

The thing you do if you want to comment but don't want to be quoted is come to an agreement with the journalist that your statement is off the record before commenting.

The thing you do is to arrange this as the journalist, not the interviewee. Which is in those links I posted.

 

[SENPAIatLARGE]

This sucks. On one hand I despise gawker and their offshoot websites, but I still like parts of Kotaku and love reading articles from Evan, Jason and Stephen. I wish Kotaku would be ok in the end, but Gawker has to go. Any site that would collaborate in blackmail and invade peoples personal lifes without ever apologizing needs to stop existing. Best of luck Kotaku writers.

 

[RE_Player]

Another article with some important clarifications: http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/19/media/hulk-hogan-gawker/index.html

I'm nodding along with the entire article but I don't understand how this paints a better picture for Gawker than what was already being discussed. Gawker has a chance to appeal but it could very easily not as well. This is known.

 

[krang]

This sucks. On one hand I despise gawker and their offshoot websites, but I still like parts of Kotaku and love reading articles from Evan, Jason and Stephen. I wish Kotaku would be ok in the end, but Gawker has to go. Any site that would collaborate in blackmail and invade peoples personal lifes without ever apologizing needs to stop existing. Best of luck Kotaku writers.

And io9.

 

[The Adder]

The thing you do is to arrange this as the journalist, not the interviewee. Which is in those links I posted.

You as the journalist arrange it because the interviewee has indicated they are willing to talk, but will only do so off the record. You don't arrange it after someone has already spoken and given no such indication. Or is it that you think journalists are some kind of psychics.

"She has responded to my e-mail, but my journalist senses are tingling. She must hage intended to comment off the record and failed to mention that. Let me e-mail her before reading what she sent me and arrange that!"

 

[MogCakes]

From the link that he posted and recommended reading. The article is clearly pro-Gawker/anti-ruling so basically between the lines he's saying that this isn't over, not to lose hope, etc since he can't actually comment on the litigation. I'm saying he shouldn't cling to the present since it means denying justice just because he enjoys his current job so much. Losing your job sucks, especially one you enjoy greatly, but to put your personal satisfaction over the justice of others is a bit selfish.

You are making assumptions about his intent based off a linked article. I really shouldn't have to articulate why that's a problem.

 

[RE_Player]

But that's ridiculous. You should blame a jury for deciding a case on feelings rather than fact. The trial asks "did Gawker break the law and injure Hulkster?", not "are Gawker unpleasant?". The Whole Thing about being on a jury is to set aside feelings -- such as disgust -- and consider facts. The facts are that Gawker didn't publish child porn.

So yeah. The comment is clearly distasteful -- you go farther to "vile", which: ok, sure -- but ultimately irrelevant. And probably not even sincerely held. So why did it even make it into the trial, I do not know.

I never said they solely decided the case based on the comment of a 4 year old child in a pornographic video is where the line is drawn in regards to Gawker interest. It is certainly a factor however in painting the company and who it does business with in a negative light in front of jurors.

Yes jurors should ideally consider facts and only facts but they are human beings and emotions can get involved in decision making whether we are aware of it or not. To make such a statement when so much is on the line is absurd.

 

[Brakke]

I don't think anyone felt that Gawker were publishing child porn. Hogan's lawyer didn't even frame it that way when he brought it up in court. Here's the entire exchange

https://youtu.be/-Pr8S44o6N4?t=258

He uses Daulerio's own words to dismantle him over several things. And it's never framed as "Gawker posts child porn".

Yeah I just finished watching that. The lawyer goes on this whole thing just to lead up to "You don't think the First Amendment is that serious, do you?". Which is an emotional appeal "gotcha!" kind of thing and still totally not relevant to the case.

Even if we did buy all the way into the lawyer's angle there: the law protects hypocrites the same as it does everyone else.