If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   Florida judge orders Gawker to take down Hulk Hogan sex tape. Gawker refuses, says eyebleach makers would go bankrupt if they complied (Update: Gawker has since taken down the link to the video)   (gawker.com) divider line 87
    More: Followup, Your Honor, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, sex tapes, A.J. Daulerio, Terri Schiavo, Gawker Media, preliminary ruling  
•       •       •

6732 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2013 at 9:20 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-26 09:25:00 AM  
I think Hulk Hogan needed the eye bleach and it ran down into his mustache while he was crying... there was a mirror in that room somewhere.
 
2013-04-26 09:25:00 AM  
So, I'm just saying is all, but this headline is blatantly false. Gawker stopped hosting the video as was demanded by the court. However, the refused to remove their coverage of the tape, which is different.
 
2013-04-26 09:25:20 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-26 09:26:17 AM  
Since Gawker stopped hosting the video, it is gone from the internet now.  Right?
 
2013-04-26 09:27:40 AM  
I sincerely question the sanity of anyone wanting to view a Hulk Hogan sex tape.
 
2013-04-26 09:29:41 AM  

FirstNationalBastard:


was expecting that or a orange thermos
 
2013-04-26 09:31:00 AM  
If Gawker hadn't gotten Hulk Hogan so angry, we could have averted a national crisis.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-26 09:31:10 AM  

Muta: Since Gawker stopped hosting the video, it is gone from the internet now.  Right?


Yes, you will NEVER find it again on the internet since Gawker took it down.
 
2013-04-26 09:31:38 AM  

BizarreMan: I sincerely question the sanity of anyone wanting to view a Hulk Hogan sex tape.


Hey, you need something to remove the image of the Clenis from your brain after watching one of Chyna's many porno flicks.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-26 09:32:47 AM  

Muta: Since Gawker stopped hosting the video, it is gone from the internet now.  Right?


That is correct. The internet is populated only by law-abiding and respectful citizens and I have no doubt that they will respect the wishes of the rightful tape owners and the courts.

/Of course, I also sure monkeys are about to come out of my butt.
 
2013-04-26 09:32:52 AM  

santadog: Muta: Since Gawker stopped hosting the video, it is gone from the internet now.  Right?

Yes, you will NEVER find it again on the internet since Gawker took it down.


Particularly since they linked to it in the NEXT PARAGRAPH since they stopped posting it directly.
/there's ways around stuff.
 
2013-04-26 09:33:05 AM  
Independent of the fact that the video is of  Hulk Hogan farking...

I am somewhat torn on the issue of having a video of you having sex posted to the internet without your consent.  I mean...yes, on the one hand you were a willing participant, but there (presumably) is a level of trust with your partner that the video will be for your and their eyes only.

I fully support the right to post porn, sex, etc. on the net, but on the other hand, I do see the other side of it, especially if you never intended that video to end up in the public.   I am trying to put myself in Hulk Hogan's shoes and see it from his perspective...it's embarrassing...unless you are an actual pornstar, sex is meant to be shared with those participating, even if there is a video camera in the room, it is still meant to be shared among those participating...

I do not really have a full answer on the matter...and I am not saying I agree or disagree with the Judge's ruling...I just do not know.
 
2013-04-26 09:34:27 AM  
They're really take a stand for journalistic integrity.
 
2013-04-26 09:34:55 AM  
As if that's the only eye bleachy thing online.
 
2013-04-26 09:36:06 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: BizarreMan: I sincerely question the sanity of anyone wanting to view a Hulk Hogan sex tape.

Hey, you need something to remove the image of the Clenis from your brain after watching one of Chyna's many porno flicks.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 411x600]


lol...you farker.

Now I need eye bleach for my eye bleach. Where's Xhibit when you really need him?

/not that I use Xhibit for eye bleach you sickos
//NTTAWWT
 
2013-04-26 09:37:09 AM  
Nuh-UH! You can't make me!

good luck with that guys.
 
2013-04-26 09:38:20 AM  

Endive Wombat: Independent of the fact that the video is of  Hulk Hogan farking...

I am somewhat torn on the issue of having a video of you having sex posted to the internet without your consent.  I mean...yes, on the one hand you were a willing participant, but there (presumably) is a level of trust with your partner that the video will be for your and their eyes only.

I fully support the right to post porn, sex, etc. on the net, but on the other hand, I do see the other side of it, especially if you never intended that video to end up in the public.   I am trying to put myself in Hulk Hogan's shoes and see it from his perspective...it's embarrassing...unless you are an actual pornstar, sex is meant to be shared with those participating, even if there is a video camera in the room, it is still meant to be shared among those participating...

I do not really have a full answer on the matter...and I am not saying I agree or disagree with the Judge's ruling...I just do not know.


Being embarrassed by something that you did isn't the greatest argument to restrict the First Amendment.
 
2013-04-26 09:39:29 AM  

BizarreMan: I sincerely question the sanity of anyone wanting to view a Hulk Hogan sex tape.


Oh comeone, there have got to be a ton of middle aged middle american women and pre-teen-not-yet-aware-they-are-gay boys who have had a thing for the hulkster since the 80s.
 
2013-04-26 09:39:47 AM  
I can't stand gawker but there's no reason they should have to take down an article describing something that actually happened (the contents of the videotape)
 
2013-04-26 09:40:18 AM  
BTW, why is this on the Entertainment tab?

/insert list here
 
2013-04-26 09:41:01 AM  

Moopy Mac: Endive Wombat: Independent of the fact that the video is of  Hulk Hogan farking...

I am somewhat torn on the issue of having a video of you having sex posted to the internet without your consent.  I mean...yes, on the one hand you were a willing participant, but there (presumably) is a level of trust with your partner that the video will be for your and their eyes only.

I fully support the right to post porn, sex, etc. on the net, but on the other hand, I do see the other side of it, especially if you never intended that video to end up in the public.   I am trying to put myself in Hulk Hogan's shoes and see it from his perspective...it's embarrassing...unless you are an actual pornstar, sex is meant to be shared with those participating, even if there is a video camera in the room, it is still meant to be shared among those participating...

I do not really have a full answer on the matter...and I am not saying I agree or disagree with the Judge's ruling...I just do not know.

Being embarrassed by something that you did isn't the greatest argument to restrict the First Amendment.


Not to mention that the only difference between this tape and his career is a spandex speedo and a ref.
 
2013-04-26 09:44:32 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Moopy Mac: Endive Wombat: Independent of the fact that the video is of  Hulk Hogan farking...

I am somewhat torn on the issue of having a video of you having sex posted to the internet without your consent.  I mean...yes, on the one hand you were a willing participant, but there (presumably) is a level of trust with your partner that the video will be for your and their eyes only.

I fully support the right to post porn, sex, etc. on the net, but on the other hand, I do see the other side of it, especially if you never intended that video to end up in the public.   I am trying to put myself in Hulk Hogan's shoes and see it from his perspective...it's embarrassing...unless you are an actual pornstar, sex is meant to be shared with those participating, even if there is a video camera in the room, it is still meant to be shared among those participating...

I do not really have a full answer on the matter...and I am not saying I agree or disagree with the Judge's ruling...I just do not know.

Being embarrassed by something that you did isn't the greatest argument to restrict the First Amendment.

Not to mention that the only difference between this tape and his career is a spandex speedo and a ref.


But the act was done in private...
 
2013-04-26 09:44:39 AM  

Endive Wombat: Independent of the fact that the video is of  Hulk Hogan farking...

I am somewhat torn on the issue of having a video of you having sex posted to the internet without your consent.  I mean...yes, on the one hand you were a willing participant, but there (presumably) is a level of trust with your partner that the video will be for your and their eyes only.

I fully support the right to post porn, sex, etc. on the net, but on the other hand, I do see the other side of it, especially if you never intended that video to end up in the public.   I am trying to put myself in Hulk Hogan's shoes and see it from his perspective...it's embarrassing...unless you are an actual pornstar, sex is meant to be shared with those participating, even if there is a video camera in the room, it is still meant to be shared among those participating...

I do not really have a full answer on the matter...and I am not saying I agree or disagree with the Judge's ruling...I just do not know.


Just think if a judge would have done this with the Kim kardashian sex tape!

We would have been spared!

Of course, when your mom/manager owns the rights to said sex tape, no judge could have it banned.
 
2013-04-26 09:47:12 AM  
 
2013-04-26 09:47:36 AM  
Avonmore

So, I'm just saying is all, but this headline is blatantly false. Gawker stopped hosting the video as was demanded by the court. However, the refused to remove their coverage of the tape, which is different.
Like honesty ever stopped mod-mins...

especially when it comes to their pet causes or pay-for-link sites.
 
2013-04-26 09:47:55 AM  

Endive Wombat: Uchiha_Cycliste: Moopy Mac: Endive Wombat: Independent of the fact that the video is of  Hulk Hogan farking...

I am somewhat torn on the issue of having a video of you having sex posted to the internet without your consent.  I mean...yes, on the one hand you were a willing participant, but there (presumably) is a level of trust with your partner that the video will be for your and their eyes only.

I fully support the right to post porn, sex, etc. on the net, but on the other hand, I do see the other side of it, especially if you never intended that video to end up in the public.   I am trying to put myself in Hulk Hogan's shoes and see it from his perspective...it's embarrassing...unless you are an actual pornstar, sex is meant to be shared with those participating, even if there is a video camera in the room, it is still meant to be shared among those participating...

I do not really have a full answer on the matter...and I am not saying I agree or disagree with the Judge's ruling...I just do not know.

Being embarrassed by something that you did isn't the greatest argument to restrict the First Amendment.

Not to mention that the only difference between this tape and his career is a spandex speedo and a ref.

But the act was done in private...


At least two other people were there. If it was one of them that distributed the video, I really don't see how HH's embarrassment is more important than the rights of these other folks.
 
2013-04-26 09:50:14 AM  

Endive Wombat: Independent of the fact that the video is of  Hulk Hogan farking...

I am somewhat torn on the issue of having a video of you having sex posted to the internet without your consent.  I mean...yes, on the one hand you were a willing participant, but there (presumably) is a level of trust with your partner that the video will be for your and their eyes only.

I fully support the right to post porn, sex, etc. on the net, but on the other hand, I do see the other side of it, especially if you never intended that video to end up in the public.   I am trying to put myself in Hulk Hogan's shoes and see it from his perspective...it's embarrassing...unless you are an actual pornstar, sex is meant to be shared with those participating, even if there is a video camera in the room, it is still meant to be shared among those participating...

I do not really have a full answer on the matter...and I am not saying I agree or disagree with the Judge's ruling...I just do not know.


Dude, Hulk Hogan isn't gonna fark you...

/sorry, had to do that whole white knight mocking thing...
//tee-hee
 
2013-04-26 09:51:31 AM  

Endive Wombat: Independent of the fact that the video is of  Hulk Hogan farking...

I am somewhat torn on the issue of having a video of you having sex posted to the internet without your consent.  I mean...yes, on the one hand you were a willing participant, but there (presumably) is a level of trust with your partner that the video will be for your and their eyes only.

I fully support the right to post porn, sex, etc. on the net, but on the other hand, I do see the other side of it, especially if you never intended that video to end up in the public.   I am trying to put myself in Hulk Hogan's shoes and see it from his perspective...it's embarrassing...unless you are an actual pornstar, sex is meant to be shared with those participating, even if there is a video camera in the room, it is still meant to be shared among those participating...

I do not really have a full answer on the matter...and I am not saying I agree or disagree with the Judge's ruling...I just do not know.


Consider too that part of their defense here is that Hogan is a public figure, and therefore the bar for invasion of privacy is higher for him... but what about the chick?
And how far can we follow this slippery slope? Could someone post the sex tape of the Steubenville rape victim and claim that they're protected by freedom of the press regarding a matter of public interest? Could a reasonable argument be made by a cyberbully that they're not harassing someone, they're being a citizen journalist on a topic of local interest?

The article references the Supreme Court decision on publication of the Pentagon Papers, but that case didn't involve invasion of privacy of a citizen, but prior restraint of the press from publishing governmental misjudgments and misconducts. I really don't think it applies.
 
2013-04-26 09:53:39 AM  
If they didididid it in the street, this would be free speech, but the video was done in private without the consent of the plaintiff.

This is a privacy matter in which free speech was not granted by the speaker, or farking man, as it were.
 
2013-04-26 09:55:27 AM  

CPennypacker: I can't stand gawker but there's no reason they should have to take down an article describing something that actually happened (the contents of the videotape)


Could Gawker publish an account describing something embarrassing about you doing something in private? Like, say you like to dress up in a tutu and dance around in your house... Specifically, could Gawker publish an article about that, with the defense that it actually happened so there's no cause to have them take it down?

One distinction here is that Hogan is a public figure... but the counterpoint is that the chick isn't - and Gawker even seems to note this in the article, never referring to her by name.
 
2013-04-26 09:56:22 AM  

from my blood: If they didididid it in the street, this would be free speech, but the video was done in private without the consent of the plaintiff.

This is a privacy matter in which free speech was not granted by the speaker, or farking man, as it were.


Hogan talked about it on the air, he acknowledged it happened, it is most definately a free speech thing.

A judge ordering a journalist (even as crappy as gawker can be) to not talk about it is a violation of that 1st amendment right.
 
2013-04-26 09:56:56 AM  

from my blood: If they didididid it in the street, this would be free speech, but the video was done in private without the consent of the plaintiff.

This is a privacy matter in which free speech was not granted by the speaker, or farking man, as it were.


There are two separate instances of speech here, though - the Gawker article is separate from the video. But, if the video is an invasion of privacy, isn't an article describing it also an invasion of privacy?
 
2013-04-26 09:57:53 AM  

SpectroBoy: Muta: Since Gawker stopped hosting the video, it is gone from the internet now.  Right?

That is correct. The internet is populated only by law-abiding and respectful citizens and I have no doubt that they will respect the wishes of the rightful tape owners and the courts.

/Of course, I also sure monkeys are about to come out of my butt.


Once you manage to cram them up there it is almost impossible to keep them in!
 
2013-04-26 09:58:32 AM  

KellyX: from my blood: If they didididid it in the street, this would be free speech, but the video was done in private without the consent of the plaintiff.

This is a privacy matter in which free speech was not granted by the speaker, or farking man, as it were.

Hogan talked about it on the air, he acknowledged it happened, it is most definately a free speech thing.

A judge ordering a journalist (even as crappy as gawker can be) to not talk about it is a violation of that 1st amendment right.


Your bank account numbers are factual things... Can I publish those? Of course not. The first amendment is not limitless.
 
2013-04-26 10:03:50 AM  

Theaetetus: but prior restraint


The Supreme court has roundly rejected prior restraint, lady
 
2013-04-26 10:04:46 AM  

Theaetetus: KellyX: from my blood: If they didididid it in the street, this would be free speech, but the video was done in private without the consent of the plaintiff.

This is a privacy matter in which free speech was not granted by the speaker, or farking man, as it were.

Hogan talked about it on the air, he acknowledged it happened, it is most definately a free speech thing.

A judge ordering a journalist (even as crappy as gawker can be) to not talk about it is a violation of that 1st amendment right.

Your bank account numbers are factual things... Can I publish those? Of course not. The first amendment is not limitless.


I haven't discussed my bank account number on radio shows either. And you're comparing apples to bricks
 
2013-04-26 10:08:05 AM  
I hope one day gawker gets shut down for this shiat.

Their entire business is doxxing celebrities.
 
2013-04-26 10:10:13 AM  
Oh comeone, there have got to be a ton of middle aged middle american women and pre-teen-not-yet-aware-they-are-gay boys who have had a thing for the hulkster since the 80s.

How can "pre-teen-not-yet-aware-they-are-gay boys"Have had a "thing" for anything since the 80's? They were born in this millennium if they are pre-teen.
 
2013-04-26 10:11:04 AM  

Theaetetus: There are two separate instances of speech here, though - the Gawker article is separate from the video. But, if the video is an invasion of privacy, isn't an article describing it also an invasion of privacy?


Gawkwer has ruled that celebrities HAVE no privacy.
http://gawker.com/tag/upskirt

for example, proves this.
 
2013-04-26 10:11:27 AM  
When I see stories like this it reminds me that Fark in particular and the internet in general have taught me to curb my curiosity, for which I'm wholeheartedly grateful.

Why the hell would anyone want to watch Hulk Hogan have sex? Why, dear god, why?
 
2013-04-26 10:17:31 AM  
Clenis
 
2013-04-26 10:24:32 AM  

o5iiawah: Theaetetus: but prior restraint

The Supreme court has roundly rejected prior restraint, lady


A more astute reader would have read the entire sentence:

Theaetetus: The article references the Supreme Court decision on publication of the Pentagon Papers, but that case didn't involve invasion of privacy of a citizen, but prior restraint of the press from publishing governmental misjudgments and misconducts.

In that case, the Supreme Court rejected prior restraint. Hence, you're trying to tell me what I clearly already knew.

Your first lesson: don't attempt to act condescending if you haven't actually read what you're replying to
Your second lesson: when you double-down with your mansplaining and call someone "lady," you only highlight your own douchebaggery.
 
2013-04-26 10:25:46 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 450x694]


OK, first real Laugh Out  Loud of the day, and I have no attention of finding out if that is an exaggeration or not, you magnificent FirstNationalBastard!
 
2013-04-26 10:25:53 AM  

KellyX: Theaetetus: KellyX: from my blood: If they didididid it in the street, this would be free speech, but the video was done in private without the consent of the plaintiff.

This is a privacy matter in which free speech was not granted by the speaker, or farking man, as it were.

Hogan talked about it on the air, he acknowledged it happened, it is most definately a free speech thing.

A judge ordering a journalist (even as crappy as gawker can be) to not talk about it is a violation of that 1st amendment right.

Your bank account numbers are factual things... Can I publish those? Of course not. The first amendment is not limitless.

I haven't discussed my bank account number on radio shows either. And you're comparing apples to bricks


You just discussed that you have a bank account in a public forum. Hogan didn't go into any more detail on the radio than you just did. Isn't it now a reasonable comparison?
 
2013-04-26 10:25:59 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: BizarreMan: I sincerely question the sanity of anyone wanting to view a Hulk Hogan sex tape.

Hey, you need something to remove the image of the Clenis from your brain after watching one of Chyna's many porno flicks.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 411x600]


I can look at Chyna and feel just fine.

There ain't a woman hot enough on the planet to make me watch her if she pairs up with Hulk Hogan.

/really, I don't have a problem with Chyna
 
2013-04-26 10:28:36 AM  

Clutch2013: FirstNationalBastard: BizarreMan: I sincerely question the sanity of anyone wanting to view a Hulk Hogan sex tape.

Hey, you need something to remove the image of the Clenis from your brain after watching one of Chyna's many porno flicks.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 411x600]

I can look at Chyna and feel just fine.

There ain't a woman hot enough on the planet to make me watch her if she pairs up with Hulk Hogan.

/really, I don't have a problem with Chyna


I feel really bad for Chyna.  That poor woman followed her dreams and everyone made fun of her for it. On top of all that, she's not very clever and is having a hard time making ends meet these days

/shes doing ESL videos for Japanese people last I heard.
 
2013-04-26 10:28:58 AM  

Clutch2013: FirstNationalBastard: BizarreMan: I sincerely question the sanity of anyone wanting to view a Hulk Hogan sex tape.

Hey, you need something to remove the image of the Clenis from your brain after watching one of Chyna's many porno flicks.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 411x600]

I can look at Chyna and feel just fine.

There ain't a woman hot enough on the planet to make me watch her if she pairs up with Hulk Hogan.

/really, I don't have a problem with Chyna


The Hulkster vs. She Hulk Chyna would look soething like this...


fc08.deviantart.net

 
2013-04-26 10:33:31 AM  

Theory Of Null: Cracked needs to update their list. http://www.cracked.com/article_16439_the-top-10-celebrity-sex-videos- n obody-wanted-to-see.html


Bookmarked for legal review.
 
2013-04-26 10:34:55 AM  
Should change the headline, Gawker has complied with the order and taken down the video.,
 
2013-04-26 10:39:46 AM  
 But the Constitution does unambiguously accord us the right to publish true things about public figures

I wasn't aware that he Constitution protected them from violating copyright law
 
Displayed 50 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report