Hulk Hogan’s Lawyer Slams Gawker’s First Amendment Defense While Jury Selection Proves To Be Difficult

no title

This is already proving to be one hell of a case.

For those who don’t know, back in the day Hulk Hogan had sex with Heather Clem, the then wife of his bestie Bubba the Love Sponge. Somehow, Gawker obtained and then posted the raunchy tape to their website in 2012. Naturally, this didn’t sit too well with Hulk.

Video: Hulk Opens About Racism

Now that Hogan’s $100 million dollar lawsuit is in full swing, inneresting details about the case have begun to emerge. Not only is jury selection proving to be hard AF, but the lawyers on both sides are already vigorously throwing mud at one another.

First things first… the jury.

While we imagine not many people would jump at joy to watch the wrestler in the throws of bone town, some potential jurors argued they would not sit for the trial due to their religious beliefs (this is Florida, we’re talking about).

One citizen contested:

“It goes against my personal beliefs, and my relationship with Jesus Christ.”

All religious beliefs aside, one person was just plain disgusted by the whole thing, admitting:

“I think the whole subject matter of the case gives me serious problems.”

Well, that’s one polite way of saying it!

Despite the setbacks, legal reps believe the process will come to a close on Friday afternoon so the trial may begin on Monday.

As for a preview of upcoming arguments, Gawker is claiming they were allowed to post the video under the first amendment while H.H.’s lawyer says that reasoning is BULLSH*T.

Hulk’s legal rep blasted the site, saying:

“Very simply stated, this is not and has never been a case about the First Amendment. This case is not about words, and it isn’t about Gawker reporting a story. It has always centered on the inclusion of a video that wasn’t necessary. This story never required the inclusion of pornographic video. The First Amendment was never designed to protect this kind of conduct. This was a significant violation of Terry’s privacy.”

Pretty good point!

To illustrate the lawyer’s angle further, we saw a more legally appropriate instance of journalists using the first amendment in regards to Bobbi Kristina‘s autopsy results. While maybe not the most sensitive choice, the media had the right to access the docs since the autopsy was performed with the consent of multiple parties and it involved a public figure.

In Hogan’s case, the video was filmed without his knowledge and didn’t even include WORDS, which is what the first amendment is all about… protecting free speech.

In defense of Gawker, they say they didn’t profit off the tape at all since they didn’t run ads with the story. The site also claims the famous personality talked about his sex life ALL THE TIME (why brother, why?!), so the story should have been no big.

A rep for Gawker reasoned:

“It takes some nerve to come to court seeking $100 million and then say that Gawker, who made no money from this story, is the greedy one. Hulk Hogan decided years ago that promoting his celebrity by talking endlessly about his sex life ├óΓé¼ΓÇ£ in autobiographies, on TV, on Howard Stern’s radio show in graphic detail ├óΓé¼ΓÇ£ was more important than his privacy. So it takes a special kind of nerve to demand $100 million by claiming the very privacy he purposefully abandoned somehow entitles him to a payout.”

Interesting! There are two sides to every coin!

So, where do YOU stand on this case?

[Image via WENN.]

Mar 4, 2016 5:17pm PDT

More Like This