Hulk Hogan Won the $140 million Sex Tape Lawsuit
LEMON: Gawker media is hoping an appeals court will overturn the $140 million judgment against the Web site, its founder and a former editor. They were sued by the wrestler Hulk Hogan for invasion of privacy after Gawker posted a snippet of a video showing Hogan having sex. Some jurors say they were sending a message with their verdict. In a few moment, I'm going to talk to Nick Denton, the founder of Gawker Media. But First, two of the Florida jury that decided that the case, Kevin Kennedy and Shane O'Neil. Hello, gentlemen. Thank you so much for joining us. Kevin, to you first.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are you doing?</s>LEMON: I'm doing great. Thank you. Kevin, you first. You and your fellow jurors awarded Hulk Hogan more than $140 million in damages in this lawsuit against Gawker Media. That's an amazing amount of money. What was behind your verdict?</s>KEVIN KENNEDY, JUROR IN HULK HOGAN V. GAWKER: Well, mainly the evidence. The evidence showed that basically, you know, the loss of revenue that Hulk Hogan could have made off of the video and also pain and suffering that he went through this entire ordeal and basically the evidence that was presented in front of us. That's what we had to work with. That's what the judge's orders were to have us look and examine that evidence without bias towards either side and that's exactly what we did.</s>LEMON: What was the most convincing piece of evidence, Kevin?</s>KENNEDY: Well, the fact that there was no evidence showing that they gave Gawker the rights to show the video. And that's really what the crux of the decision was about. That's really what -- in large part, what this case was about.</s>LEMON: So Shane, Gawker --</s>KENNEDY: They didn't have the permission to show it.</s>LEMON: Gawker argued that this video, Shane, was news worthy in part because Hulk Hogan is a big celebrity with a larger than life public personality. That he had talk about it in other places. Was that argument at all convincing? Did you debate that?</s>SHANE O'NEIL, JUROR IN HULK HOGAN V, GAWKER: We absolutely debated that. We had a great jury. There were six of us. We all came from different perspectives of life and we all came in with really different thoughts and balanced each other really well through that. But you know, quite frankly, here, we didn't think that was, you know, the case at all as far as Mr. Bollea. We knew -- it was very clear this was invasion of privacy and it was very clear he did not want that tape to be put out to the public. And so that was the evidence that -- that was absolutely 100 percent clear to all of us.</s>LEMON: OK. So Kevin, Listen. After the verdict, Nick Denton, right, who is the founder if Gawker. He posted this on Gawker.com. And here is what he says. He said, it turns out this case was never about the sex on the tape Gawker received but about racist language on another, unpublished tape that threatened Hogan's reputation and career. As our lawyers argued in legal briefs that were kept secret by the trial judge from the public, Hogan filed a claim because he was terrified that one of the other tapes which memorialized his rant about his daughter dating f'ing n words might emerge. It is now clear that Hogan's lawsuit was a calculated attempt to prevent Gawker or anyone else who might obtain evidence of his racism from publishing a truth more interesting or damaging than a revelation about his sex life." If they had introduced that into evidence, Kevin, would that have changed anything for you?</s>KENNEDY: I'd have to see the video. But since I haven't seen the video, I can only go on what I have seen. And what I have seen, you know, the fact that he did not want that video shown, is really all I can go on. I guess that would have to be a question for the jury.</s>LEMON: Shane, same question for you.</s>O'NEIL: Don, yes. Sure, Don. Thank you. You know, obviously it's the opposite for me. I mean, it makes it even more clear that he did not want that video to be out there. If you think about the kind of things, the comments that he made on the actual sex tape as well as what you just mentioned, obviously that's not somebody that knew he was being taped and that this is something that would go out to the public. So I think that solidifies it in my mind even more so that Mr. Hogan was not involved in this as far as knowing that it was happening and obviously he didn't want it out.</s>LEMON: Some jurors have said the Gawker people thought that they were above the law. Explain what you mean by that, Shane.</s>O'NEIL: Sure. Absolutely. I think it was very clear the way Mr. Denton kind of -- his philosophy with his company and the way he's brought his people in is that they are all about going across the line. They are not about normal journalism, ethical journalism. This is about taking it to a completely different limit and they are testing it and this is why we're here, is basically they crossed the first amendment. They crossed a right of privacy. And this is the whole crux of the whole thing and why we're here.</s>LEMON: Jurors have also said that there was a sense of arrogance. Is there a disconnect, you think, between Nick Denton's values and what Gawker deems acceptable and what the rest of the country thinks?</s>O'NEIL: You know, actually, I think on the arrogance, there was a lot of that evidence or presentation that we had from people getting on the stand from deposition. Everybody from</s>LEMON: You know, many news organizations, probably all news organizations are looking at this and thinking about the first amendment. To Kevin, were you hoping to send a message to other media outlets with this multimillion dollar verdict?</s>KENNEDY: Absolutely. I mean, you can't hide behind the first amendment, you know, to further your career, your company, to make more money, whatever the case may be. So that's the way I feel about it. As a group, definitely, we felt that in this case, privacy overweighed the right of the first amendment as it applied to gawker.</s>LEMON: Shane?</s>O'NEIL: To that point, don, yes, on the punitive damage side, the last part of it, it was very, very clear that it was for two things. It was punishing Gawker, the folks involved, Gawker, Mr. Denton, A.J. Delorio. But it was also clear that it should be to deter others from doing the same thing. And we have to make that decision. So obviously, a small amount of money in a multibillion dollar industry, it would not make that kind of an impact to deter. So a lot of things came into our evaluation, you know, on all three phases of the damages but quite frankly it was very clear we had to make an example to others to deter.</s>LEMON: Kevin, I'm going to be interviewing Nick Denton right after you. If you had the opportunity to speak with him personally, what would you tell him?</s>KENNEDY: After what we have seen and as I have seen is a group, basically what I said before, you know, put yourself in his shoes and don't try to further yourself and hide behind the first amendment just to further your goals. But, again, I still think, as I have said before in one of the other interviews, that didn't seem to me like he had a heart or a soul. That certainly didn't come across the way the people that he hired, the way he trained them, the environment that he fostered at Gawker. And --</s>O'NEIL: I think quite frankly, bring back ethics and morals in journalism when making decisions about something like this out that is controversial. That's what it really what it comes down to.</s>LEMON: Shane O'Neil, Kevin Kennedy, thank you.</s>O'NEIL: You're welcome. Thanks for having us.</s>LEMON: Up next, Nick Denton speaks out about what these two jurors just said and what's next for Gawker.