free speech lawsuits in American media, and it’s understandable why multiple filmmakers would have an. The site could go bankrupt if it loses the appeal or can't settle for a reduced amount, New York-based attorney Lance Fletcher told Fox News. Gawker case of 2016 was certainly a landmark in terms of privacy vs.
Gawker's lawyers argue that the damages awarded by the jury are "grossly excessive" and should be vacated or reduced. But Gawker argued that the First Amendment doesn't require outlets to contact subjects of news reports. Third, they argue that Hogan's lawyer's closing arguments "fundamentally undermined the fairness of the trial" because he urged the jury to "award damages by applying standards that plainly violated the First Amendment." Hogan's lawyers suggested in court that Gawker's post didn't deserve protection under the First Amendment because the "Defendants did not have the common decency" to reach out to Hogan before the sex tape was published, reports NBC News. Gawker's lawyers also argue that the jury's verdict went "against the manifest evidence of the case" because Hogan's sex tape was indeed a matter of "public concern," and that Hogan lacked a "reasonable expectation of privacy in his sexual encounters," among other evidence, according to the motion. They argue that the jury, based in Florida, where Hogan is from, based its verdict on "passion and prejudice" and, in particular, on its "general distaste for the Defendants ," according to the motion. Gawker's lawyers are arguing for the new trial based on four key points: It often indicates a user profile.Īlong with the motion for a new trial, Gawker's lawyers issued a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which is asking a judge to overrule a jury's verdict.
Account icon An icon in the shape of a person's head and shoulders.
0 kommentar(er)
