![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The article uses the private-facts lawsuit of the retired wrestler Hulk Hogan against Gawker Media as a case study to look at the challenges of balancing the media’s freedom of expression and individuals' privacy in the contemporary celebrity-centred culture. It suggests that the verdict in the privacy suit reflects the jurors' profound disenchantment with the way in which freedom of expression was subverted in this case by the media organisation. It further adopts a comparative perspective that draws parallels and highlights differences between American and English privacy law. It explores Hogan's claim through the lens of the emerging English privacy jurisprudence and identifies important lessons to be learnt for the future of the newly developed tort of misuse of private information.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Dr Alexandros K Antoniou is a Lecturer in Criminology at the University of West London and conducts research within the fields of communications law and criminology.
Dr Dimitris Akrivos is a Lecturer in Criminology at Canterbury Christ Church University. His research lies mainly at the intersection between criminology, law and cultural studies.
Notes
1 Tim Delaney and Tim Madigan, Lessons Learned from Popular Culture (SUNY Press 2016).
2 Thomas Mathiesen, ‘The Viewer Society’ (1997) 1(2) Theoretical Criminology 215.
3 Richard Dyer, Stars (British Film Institute 1979).
4 Gregg Barak, ‘Media, Society and Criminology’ in Gregg Barak (ed), Media, Process, and the Social Construction of Crime (Garland 1994) 23.
5 Leo Bogart, Commercial Culture: The Media System and the Public Interest (OUP 1995).
6 Graeme Turner, Understanding Celebrity (Sage 2004).
7 Samantha Barbas, ‘Saving Privacy from History’ (2012) 61(4) DePaul Law Review 973; Samantha Barbas, ‘The Death of the Public Disclosure Tort: A Historical Perspective’ (2010) 22(2) Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 171; Daniel L Zimmerman, ‘Requiem for a Heavyweight: A Farewell to Warren and Brandeis’ Privacy Tort’ 1983 68(3) Cornell Law Review 291.
8 ‘Hulk Hogan Weeps as Jury Awards Him £80m in Sex Tape Case’ Media Lawyer (London, 21 March 2016) <http://medialawyer.press.net/article.jsp?id=11495756> accessed 21 March 2016; Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, ‘Hogan v Gawker’ (Columbia University, 18 March 2016) <https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hogan-v-gawker/> accessed 20 October 2016.
9 Sandi Towers-Romero, Media and Entertainment Law (Delmar Cengage Learning 2009); Yvonne Jewkes, Media and Crime (3rd edn, Sage 2015).
10 Robert Balin and Yuli Takatsuki, ‘“You say tomato … ”: A Comparison of English and US Privacy Law Principles’ in James Lewis and Paul Crick (eds), Media Law and Ethics in the 21st Century: Protecting Free Expression and Curbing Abuses (Palgrave Macmillan 2014) 144; Kirsty Hughes and Neil Richards, ‘The Atlantic Divide on Privacy and Free Speech’ in Andrew Kenyon (ed), Comparative Defamation and Privacy Law (CUP 2016) 196.
11 For the procedural history of the case, see Columbia Global Freedom of Expression (n 8).
12 ‘Hulk Hogan Weeps’ (n 8); see also Columbia Global Freedom of Expression (n 8).
13 ‘Hulk Hogan Weeps as Jury Awards Him £115m in Sex Tape Lawsuit’ Irish Examiner (Cork, 19 March 2016) <http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/entertainment/hulk-hogan-weeps-as-jury-awards-him-115m-in-sex-tape-lawsuit-725944.html> accessed 20 March 2016.
14 Edward Helmore and Nicky Woolf, ‘Hulk Hogan Awarded $115m in Gawker Sex Tape Lawsuit’ The Guardian (London, 19 March 2016) 26.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 ‘Hogan in Line to Top “Pounds 100m”’ Daily Star Sunday (London, 20 March 2016) 4.
18 ‘Hulk Hogan Weeps’ (n 8); Helmore and Woolf (n 14).
19 Ibid.
20 Patricia Sánchez Abril, ‘“A Simple, Human Measure of Privacy”: Public Disclosure of Private Facts in the World of Tiger Woods’ (2011) 10(2) Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 385, 385.
21 Sidis v FR Publishing Corp, 113 F 2d 806, 809 (2d Cir 1940).
22 John Bussian and Paul Levine, ‘Invasion of Privacy and the Media: The Right “To Be Let Alone”’ Florida Bar (August 2004) <http://www.floridabar.org/divcom/pi/rhandbook01.nsf/1119bd38ae090a748525676f0053b606/dfc00ac22467b7f5852569cb004cbc2a!OpenDocument#Untitled%20Section_0> accessed 29 September 2016.
23 Kent R Middleton, William E Lee and Daxton R Steward, The Law of Public Communication (9th edn, Routledge 2016) 175.
24 Daniel J Solove and Paul M Schwartz, Privacy and the Media (Aspen Publishers 2008) 124.
25 Rosenbloom v Metromedia Inc, 403 US 29, 41 (1971).
26 Abood v Detroit Board of Education, 431 US 209 (1977).
27 Bussian and Levine (n 22).
28 Danielle Keats Citron, ‘Mainstreaming Privacy Torts’ (2010) 98(6) California Law Review 1805, 1829; see also Florida Star v BJF, 491 US 524 (1989).
29 Middleton et al (n 23) 181.
30 Virgil v Sports Illustrated Inc, 424 F Supp 1286, 1289 (SD Cal 1976).
31 Patricia Sánchez Abril, ‘Private Ordering: A Contractual Approach to Online Interpersonal Privacy’ (2010) 45(3) Wake Forest Law Review 689, 697.
32 Gilbert v Medical Economics Co, 665 F 2d 305, 308 (10th Cir 1981).
33 Clay Calvert, ‘Defining “Public Concern” After Snyder v Phelps: A Pliable Standard Mingles with News Media Complicity’ (2012) 19(1) Villanova Sports & Entertainment Law Journal 39, 41; Dan B Dobbs, The Law of Torts (West Academic Publishing 2000) 39; Vincent R Johnson and Alan Gunn, Studies in American Tort Law (Carolina Academic Press 1994) 2.
34 American Jurisprudence: A Modern Comprehensive Text Statement of American Law, State and Federal (2nd edn, Lawyers Co-operative 2011) para 187.
35 Snyder v Phelps et al, 131 S Ct 1207, 1216 (2011).
36 Cinel v Connick, 15 F 3d 1338 (1994).
37 Virgil v Time Inc, 527 F 2d 1122, 1129 (1975).
38 Bartnicki v Copper, 532 US 514, 533–34 (2001).
39 Bret Michaels v IEG Inc, 5 F Supp 2d 823, 841–42 (CD Cal April 27th, 1998).
40 Balin and Takatsuki (n 10) 145.
41 See Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 [120] (Lord Hope): ‘But it is not enough to deprive Miss Campbell of her right to privacy that she is a celebrity and that her private life is newsworthy.’
42 Hughes and Richards (n 10) 196.
43 Ibid, 196.
44 Ibid, 164–65.
45 Ibid, 196.
46 Ibid.
47 Wainright v Home Office [2004] 2 AC 406 [31].
48 Campbell (n 41) [14] (Lord Nicholls).
49 Ash & Anor v McKennitt & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1714.
50 Ibid [46] (Buxton LJ).
51 Murray v Big Pictures Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 446 [17]; see also [36].
52 Snyder v Phelps et al (n 35) 1216, citing City of San Diego v Roe 125 S Ct 521 (2004).
53 Florida Star v BJF (n 28).
54 Campbell (n 41) [21].
55 Jagger v Darling [2005] EWHC 863.
56 Ibid [6].
57 Ibid [7].
58 Ibid [14].
59 CTB v News Group Newspapers (NGN) [2011] EWHC 1232.
60 Ibid [23].
61 Ibid.
62 Mosley v NGN [2008] EWHC 1777.
63 Ibid [98].
64 Ibid [100].
65 Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595 [84]–[91].
66 McKennitt & Ors v Ash & Purple Inc Press Ltd [2005] EWHC 3003 [81].
67 PJS v NGN Ltd [2016] EWSC 26 [35]; Tom Iverson, ‘Landmark Privacy Ruling in the “Celebrity Threesome” Case (2016) 27(6) Entertainment Law Review 202. See, however, Lord Toulson, dissenting, who took the view that ‘the world of public information is interactive and indivisible’ and where the information is widely disseminated, the medium and form of the publication, be it Internet, print or broadcast journalism, should not make a significant difference: [89].
68 Campbell (n 41) [154].
69 Von Hannover v Germany (2004) 40 EHRR 1 [60].
70 A v B & C [2002] EWCA Civ 337 [11].
71 Campbell v MGN Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1373 [41].
72 The Right Honourable Lord Justice Leveson, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press: Volume II (The Stationery Office 2012) 602.
73 Von Hannover (n 69) [76].
74 Von Hannover v Germany (No 2) (2012) 55 EHRR 15 and Axel Springer AG v Germany (2012) (Joint Application No 3995/08).
75 Ibid [109] and [90] respectively. However, the rumoured marital difficulties of a country’s president or a famous singer's financial struggles were not deemed matters of general interest.
76 Von Hannover (No 2) (n 74) [117].
77 Balin and Takatsuki (n 10) 145.
78 Von Hannover (No 2) (n 74) [110].
79 Axel Springer AG (n 74) [101].
80 Von Hannover (No 2) (n 74) [111] and Axel Springer AG (n 74) [92].
81 Mosley (n 62) [114], [124], [128], [132].
82 PJS (n 67) [32] (Lord Mance).
83 Ibid [24].
84 Columbia Global Freedom of Expression (n 8).
85 Paul Callan, ‘Hulk Hogan Verdict Body-Slams Gawker’ (CNN, 22 March 2016) <http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/20/opinions/hulk-hogan-verdict-warning-shot-media-opinion-callan/index.html> accessed 19 September 2016.
86 According to Hogan's legal team, Gawker Media's gross revenues in 2015 were US$48.7 million dollars (£33.8m) and the website's founder and owner had a total of US$121 million dollars (£84.2m). Gawker Media was worth US$83 million dollars (£57.7m). Daulerio had no assets and a 27,000 dollars (£18,000) student loan debt; ‘Hulk Hogan Awarded Extra £17m in Sex Tape Lawsuit’ (Media Lawyer, 22 March 2016) <http://medialawyer.press.net/article.jsp?id=11505071> accessed 22 March 2016; ‘Gawker just got hit with another $25 million for punitive damages’ (Associated Press, 21 March 2016) <http://uk.businessinsider.com/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-another-25-million-in-damages-in-gawker-trial-2016-3> accessed 20 October 2016.
87 Ibid.
88 Ibid.
89 Ibid.
90 Nick Denton, ‘The Hogan Verdict’ (Gawker, 22 March 2016) <http://gawker.com/the-hogan-verdict-1766460791> accessed 22 March 2016.
91 Tamara Lush, ‘Judge Denies Motion for new Gawker-Hulk Hogan Trial’ (Associated Press, 25 May 2016) <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/56fd1eb1554f4f6bac31c9655751420e/hulk-hogan-gawker-back-court-florida> accessed 25 May 2016.
92 Culture, Media & Sport Committee, Press Standards: Privacy and Libel (2009-10, HC 362-II) 54.
93 Campbell v MGN [2002] EWCA Civ 1373 [139].
94 McKennitt (n 66).
95 Weller v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 1163.
96 Mark Warby, Nicole Moreham and Iain Christie (eds), Tugendhat and Christie's Law of Privacy and the Media (2nd edn, OUP 2011); Eric Barendt, ‘English Privacy Law and the Leveson Report’ in Normann Witzleb, David Lindsay, Moira Paterson and Sharon Rodrick (eds), Emerging Challenges in Privacy Law (CUP 2014) 188.
97 Mosley (n 62) [216]; Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, Privacy & Injunctions (2010-12, HL 273, HC 1443) 34.
98 Mosley (n 62) [172] – [197], [235].
99 In privacy cases, it remains open to claimants to seek an account of profits in lieu of compensatory damages. Although this would have the same financial effects as exemplary damages, such claims are difficult to pursue in practice, as they involve complex causation questions and calculations; Culture, Media & Sport Committee, Press Standards (n 92) 25.
100 Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions (n 97) 35.
101 The Right Honourable Lord Justice Leveson, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press: Volume IV (The Stationery Office 2012) 1512.
102 Spelman v Express Newspapers [2012] EWHC 355.
103 Ibid [114].
104 See for example Gulati & Ors v MGN Ltd [2015] EWHC 1482, in which the claimants’ phones had been hacked by Mirror journalists over a period of years. Sadie Frost, an English actress, was awarded £260,250, reflecting the seriousness with which the High Court viewed the violation of her rights. The claimants’ claims fell into three main categories in this case: wrongfully listening to private or confidential information left for or by the claimant, wrongfully obtaining private information via private investigators, and the publication of stories based on that information.
105 PJS (n 67) [42].
106 The provisions came into force on 3 November 2015. It is immaterial whether or not a regulator has been approved by the Press Recognition Panel. However, s 35(3)(a) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 stipulates that the court must take into account ‘whether membership of an approved regulator was available to the defendant at the material time’. This provision can thus provide a defence against the s 34 award if no such regulator had been approved at the material time.
107 PJS (n 67) [92].
108 Ibid.
109 Hughes and Richards (n 10) 166.
110 The Defamation Act 2013, s 11 removed the presumption in favour of jury trial in defamation cases. The result is that such actions are to be tried without a jury, unless the court orders otherwise.
111 See also John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586, 608, in which the claimant's award of damages was reduced from £75,000 to £25,000, the jurors were described by Lord Bingham MR as ‘sheep loosed on an unfenced common with no shepherd’.
112 Hughes and Richards (n 10) 165.
113 Callan (n 85),
114 Denton (n 90).
115 Steven Barnett, ‘Public Interest: The Public Decides’ (2012) 23(2) British Journalism Review 15.
116 Callan (n 85).
117 Sydney Ember, ‘Gawker, Filing for Bankruptcy after Hulk Hogan Suit, is for Sale’ The New York Times (New York, 10 June 2016) <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/business/media/gawker-bankruptcy-sale.html?_r=0> accessed 10 June 2016.
118 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, ‘Resolution 1165: Right to Privacy’ (Text adopted by the Assembly on 26 June 1998, 24th Sitting) <http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=16641&lang%20=en> accessed 10 September 2016.
119 Lawrence Knight, ‘News of the World: Counting the Cost’ (BBC News, 7 July 2011) <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14044052> accessed 13 September 2016; Alison Park, Caroline Bryson, Elizabeth Clery, John Curtice and Miranda Phillips, British Social Attitudes: The 30th Report (NatCen Social Research 2013) xv.