General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe lawyer that killed Gawker is now part of Trump's Stormy legal team
https://www.thedailybeast.com/charles-harder-representing-trump-in-stormy-daniels-case
The porno president is going to the mattresses.
&t=22s
Siwsan
(26,259 posts)And it doesn't matter how skilled the lawyer is, if his client doesn't listen to the advice.
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)poboy2
(2,078 posts)-reply from lawyer for S. Daniels on AM Joy this morning
C_U_L8R
(44,998 posts)Yet another narcissistic misanthrope
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)That's how that v. Gawker lawyer defended Hulk Hogan. Precedent, and he set it.
from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/business/media/hulk-hogan-v-gawker-a-guide-to-the-trial-for-the-perplexed.html
Mr. Bolleas lawyers have said that the video was not newsworthy, that its publication caused him emotional stress and harm and that Gawker posted it only for financial gain. Moreover, Mr. Bollea argues that Hulk Hogan, the character, made all those sexual boasts, not Mr. Bollea himself. And that Mr. Hogan, the character, is given to exaggeration and falsehood, which explains any contradictory statements he made about the tape and his knowledge of it. Mr. Hogan, he agrees, does not have much privacy left to violate. But Mr. Bollea does.
...
from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker
Trial and verdict
The six-person jury consisted of four women and two men.[19] The trial lasted two weeks.[20] During the trial, Gawker argued that Bollea made his sex life a public matter, although on cross-examination, when asked by Bollea's lawyer whether a depiction of his genitalia had any "news value," former Gawker editor AJ Daulerio responded "no".[21] Bollea said that comments made in interviews were done in his professional wrestling character, an on-air persona different than his own.[22] The court was shown a taped deposition where Daulerio said that he would consider a celebrity sex tape non-newsworthy if the subject was under the age of four.[23] Daulerio later told the court he was being flippant in his response.[24]
On March 18, 2016, the jury delivered a verdict in favor of Bollea. The jury awarded him $115 million in compensatory damages, which included $60 million for emotional distress. The jury awarded Bollea an additional $25 million in punitive damages on March 21.[8]
Reactions to the verdict ranged from those supporting it and decrying voyeuristic publications, to those describing it as of limited scope which doesn't damage free speech, to those describing the verdict and the large judgment as having a deeply chilling effect on journalism when courts can decide newsworthiness.[25][26][27]