(cross posted at the Counts Law Group blog)
A federal court in Florida has rejected an attempt by wrestler Hulk Hogan -- whose given name is Terry Gene Bollea -- to force the Gawker.com website to remove excerpts of a sex video from its site.
Bollea admitted that he was on the tape, but claimed that he was unaware of the recording and that it violated his privacy. So he sought a court order to force the site to remove the video while his privacy lawsuit against Gawker is pending.
The court denied this request, and refused to issue the order. "The fact that Plaintiff may be embarrassed by the Video is not 'the type of irreparable harm or injury that would tip the scale toward justifying a prior restraint,'" the court said, quoting a prior case.
In general, courts will not issue orders against speech unless the threat is of the highest order: national security, or imminent danger to someone. Embarrassment is not sufficient justification. "In all but the most exceptional circumstances, an injunction restricting speech pending final resolution of constitutional concerns is impermissible," the court said in rejecting Hogan's request.
An article on the Hulk Hogan case is here; the court decision is here.
A federal court in Florida has rejected an attempt by wrestler Hulk Hogan -- whose given name is Terry Gene Bollea -- to force the Gawker.com website to remove excerpts of a sex video from its site.
Bollea admitted that he was on the tape, but claimed that he was unaware of the recording and that it violated his privacy. So he sought a court order to force the site to remove the video while his privacy lawsuit against Gawker is pending.
The court denied this request, and refused to issue the order. "The fact that Plaintiff may be embarrassed by the Video is not 'the type of irreparable harm or injury that would tip the scale toward justifying a prior restraint,'" the court said, quoting a prior case.
In general, courts will not issue orders against speech unless the threat is of the highest order: national security, or imminent danger to someone. Embarrassment is not sufficient justification. "In all but the most exceptional circumstances, an injunction restricting speech pending final resolution of constitutional concerns is impermissible," the court said in rejecting Hogan's request.
An article on the Hulk Hogan case is here; the court decision is here.
