The Court noted the higher standard for granting a preliminary injunction in a freedom of the press case: “publication must threaten an interest more fundamental than the First Amendment itself.” ((Hogan v. The Middle District of Florida issued an opinion denying Hogan’s original motion for a preliminary injunction in Federal Court. Middle District of Florida on Preliminary Injunction Thereafter, Gawker filed a writ with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed (but not denied), presumably for lack of finality. Gawker filed a motion to dismiss the case based on this ruling, which the state court denied. In the meantime, Gawker removed the video but left up the commentary. The injunction was appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal, which granted a stay on the injunction pending their opinion. The Court of Appeals reversed the state court judge on First Amendment grounds. Hogan again filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which was granted by the state court judge. Hogan then voluntarily dismissed the case in federal court and brought a claim in state court. This suit was originally filed in the Middle District of Florida, where the federal judge denied Hogan’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that Gawker’s posting was protected under the First Amendment. The excerpt (one minute and 40 seconds in length), was posted on Gawker’s website along with commentary from then editor. Hogan brought suit against Gawker claiming invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, publication of private matter, and violation of the right to publicity. This case involves Gawker’s posting of an excerpt of a 30 minute sex tape of Hogan having sex with the wife of one of his friends on their website, which was sent to Gawker from an anonymous source in 2012. The Plaintiff is Hulk Hogan, a famous American wrestler and TV personality. The Defendant in this case, Gawker Media, is a celebrity news and gossip website. This case has a colorful procedural history and Gawker has already indicated that it will appeal from which it expects a favorable outcome based on decisions of the federal court and the court of appeal on the preliminary injunction. The jury in this case found in favor of Hogan, that his privacy rights had been violated, and this outweighed Gawker’s right to post news on their site. This case involves a dispute between Hogan’s right to privacy and Gawker’s right to freedom of speech and expression, specifically concerning a sex tape posted to Gawker’s website.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |