.

PJfanwillneverleave1
PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
edited May 2016 in A Moving Train
.
Post edited by PJfanwillneverleave1 on

Comments

  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 45,657
    Yes the jury had a point.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    I don't know the case (no, I don't live under a rock...I live under a very dense tree) but if a personal sex tape was stolen and used for profits by some sleazy "media" company, he is entitled to all the profits generated plus additional compensation.

    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 25,078
    mickeyrat said:

    Yes the jury had a point.

    agreed.

    this is the difference between hogan and kim kardashian, who released her tape on her own to make her famous.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    gimmesometruth27 said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Yes the jury had a point.

    agreed.

    this is the difference between hogan and kim kardashian, who released her tape on her own to make her famous.
    With you on this too, gimme.

    This also shines a maybe-from-the-side light on this need to record everything, whether sex or a meal or just driving to the fucking store. How did we ever get through life without this ability?!

    Oh, right. Memory.

    ....that said, and being old-school, any potentially-damaging Polaroids are in trustworthy hands =)
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    And yes, unnecessary lawsuits abound here as well. Limited only to the US? Not sure.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 51,033
    rgambs said:

    I don't know the case (no, I don't live under a rock...I live under a very dense tree) but if a personal sex tape was stolen and used for profits by some sleazy "media" company, he is entitled to all the profits generated plus additional compensation.

    Agreed.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • rollings
    rollings unknown Posts: 7,127
    the title of this thread is fallacious. it has the false assumption that it is the infidelity and not the unauthorized usage that is being compensated.

    sincerely,

    the logical argument police

  • mookeywrench
    mookeywrench Posts: 6,099
    OP, aren't you the one who went on a raging tirade against the 10 club when the new forum started about how anyone could post on your wall without your consent, it couldn't be removed and it was open for public viewing?
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    edited March 2016
    mookeywrench said:

    OP, aren't you the one who went on a raging tirade against the 10 club when the new forum started about how anyone could post on your wall without your consent, it couldn't be removed and it was open for public viewing?

    I wouldn't say a raging tirade against the 10c. It had the potential to be abused and at the beginning people were messaging each other in what they thought was private. If you clicked on their profile anyone could read it.

  • mookeywrench
    mookeywrench Posts: 6,099
    PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

    mookeywrench said:

    OP, aren't you the one who went on a raging tirade against the 10 club when the new forum started about how anyone could post on your wall without your consent, it couldn't be removed and it was open for public viewing?

    I wouldn't say a raging tirade against the 10c. It had the potential to be abused and at the beginning people were messaging each other in what they thought was private. If you clicked on their profile anyone could read it.

    exactly
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    mookeywrench said:

    PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

    mookeywrench said:

    OP, aren't you the one who went on a raging tirade against the 10 club when the new forum started about how anyone could post on your wall without your consent, it couldn't be removed and it was open for public viewing?

    I wouldn't say a raging tirade against the 10c. It had the potential to be abused and at the beginning people were messaging each other in what they thought was private. If you clicked on their profile anyone could read it.

    exactly
    Cheating is a little different. One knows they will get caught eventually and if not they certainly are playing with fire.
  • mookeywrench
    mookeywrench Posts: 6,099
    The suit had nothing to do with cheating or getting caught. It was about releasing a private moment to the public without his consent.

    If someone posted a video of you at your lowest, most immoral, moment in life on the 10 club wall, and it was impossible to remove: Would you just let it go, because you were being immoral?
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    mookeywrench said:

    The suit had nothing to do with cheating or getting caught. It was about releasing a private moment to the public without his consent.

    If someone posted a video of you at your lowest, most immoral, moment in life on the 10 club wall, and it was impossible to remove: Would you just let it go, because you were being immoral?

    I would be upset for sure and would want to know who posted it. But in his case it's as if the fact he was cheating and being caught is to be dismissed.
  • mookeywrench
    mookeywrench Posts: 6,099
    Well of coarse that's to be dismissed since that's not what the law suit was handling.

    Divorce court took care of that when Linda Hogan received 70% of the married couple's liquid assets.
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    mookeywrench said:

    Well of coarse that's to be dismissed since that's not what the law suit was handling.

    Divorce court took care of that when Linda Hogan received 70% of the married couple's liquid assets.

    If it was a video of him having a picnic in the park with this woman I don't think it would of made it to court.
  • mookeywrench
    mookeywrench Posts: 6,099
    Correct, because a picnic in the park is in a public setting and Gawker would not have been able to profit off of it.
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    That's true.
    So what do you think the reason he took this to court for?
    A guaranteed win?
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 25,078
    this video was filmed without hogan's consent. hidden camera style. i saw part of it when it was released.

    it was illegally filmed.
    it was sold to gawker and whomever filmed it profited from it.
    the website published it and profited from it.
    hogan was ridiculed for shagging his best friend's wife, damaging his reputation.

    i would have sued too. there has to be a boundary between publishing a story to inform the public and publishing an intimate moment clasdestinely filmed and sold for profit that has no news value at all..
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • mookeywrench
    mookeywrench Posts: 6,099
    Food for thought: if Cosby was filmed in the same manner offering a woman a painkiller and nothing more incriminating beyond sharing Rx drugs. Would the public feel he would have the right to sue?

Categories