Fight not over after Hulk Hogan’s $151m sex tape win

The eye-popping $US115 million ($151m) award for former pro-wrestler Hulk Hogan is not the final round in his sex tape lawsuit against Gawker Media.

The jury will return to court tonight to award punitive damages in the case that’s been closely watched by First Amendment expert­s, media lawyers and privacy advocates.

And even when the jury’s done, there will be appeals.

“Given the key evidence and the most important witness in this case were withheld from the jury, we all knew the appeals court would need to resolve this case,” said Gawker founder Nick ­Denton.

The jurors reached their decis­ion on Saturday. Hogan, whose given name is Terry Bollea, sued Gawker for $US100m for posting a video of him having sex with his former best friend’s wife. Hogan contended that the 2012 post viol­ated his privacy.

Jury awards this large are often reduced by appeals courts.

“It’s a huge damage award, and just the idea that a celebrity has a right to privacy that outweighs freedom of the press and the public’s right to know, that’s a huge shift in American free press law,” said Samantha Barbas. “It could potentially be a turning point in law,” added Ms Barbas, a law professor at the University at Buffalo and author of The Laws of Image, about the history of libel and privacy.

Hogan, 62, wept after the award was announced. He was silen­t as he walked from the courthouse, clad all in black and wearing sunglasses in the twilight. He didn’t speak to the media, and declined to sign an autograph for a fan.

His team issued a statement: “We’re exceptionally happy with the verdict. We think it represents a statement as to the public’s disgust with the invasion of privacy disguised as journalism. The verdict says no more.”

The verdict and the unsealing of hundreds of pages of documents late in the day capped a three-week judicial circus in the sleepy St Petersburg courtroom.

Jurors, media and thousands who followed the case on Twitter and livestream video were treated to details about Hogan’s sex life, body part size, and images of him in thong underwear.

The court also heard how Gawker — a 12-year-old news and gossip website in New York — does journalism differently from legacy media.

The unsealed documents will undoubtedly be key in Gawker’s appeals process. The evidence was unsealed because a group of media companies sued for access and won. The civil court judge in the case had ruled that the documents be sealed, but an appellate court sided with the media companies, saying they were of legitimate public interest.

The documents outline allegations, facts and conflicting testimony. Among them: assertions that Hogan filed the lawsuit to hide racist comments made on video, that the woman who Hogan had sex with knew it was being filmed, and that Hogan participated in an FBI investigation and sting because he was being extorted.

Lawyers for Hogan and Gawker discussed themes of personal life versus celebrity and freedom of speech versus the right to ­privacy.

They said Hogan did not consent to the video, that Gawker did not follow usual journalism procedures before posting it and that the video was not newsworthy.

Gawker did not try to contact Hogan or the woman in the video; nor did the website contact the woman’s husband, DJ Bubba The Love Sponge Clem, who recorded the video. It was never conclusively determined during the trial who leaked the video to the media.

Clem invoked his right to not incriminate himself and was not called as a witness. Hogan sued Clem and settled for $US5000.

Hogan did not ask for any of this to happen, lawyer Kenneth Turkel said, adding that Mr Bollea, the private man, expected privacy during an intimate momen­t. Much was made during the trial of Hogan’s celebrity persona versus Mr Bollea’s privacy.

“I want you to imagine the fact that for 35-plus years he is essent­ially an actor, an entertainer, who has played the same role,” Mr Turkel said. He said Hogan “has every right, every right, to keep whatever precious private moment­s in his life, which for this gentleman are very few.”

Gawker’s lawyers told the jury that the video was “not like a real celebrity sex tape” and urged them to watch the video, which contains nine seconds of sexual content.

“He has consistently chosen to put his private life out there, for public consumption,” lawyer Michae­l Sullivan said.