[grabcocque]

The thing I don't understand is how that jury arrived at its stratospheric damages figure. Was it designed by the jury to be high enough to put gawker out of business?

I mean. I have no sympathy for Gawker, and don't think there are any interesting free speech principles at stake here, I just don't understand it.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

It's much less surprising when you review the highlight of the testimony: https://youtu.be/Ub80kHh5WDI?t=73

That was said under oath in front of a judge and jury. Makes it rather hard to take people ranting about "chilling effect on the press" seriously, doesn't it?

[berberous]

Minor nitpick: I think he said that in a deposition, not in front of the judge and jury, although I think the tape was played in court for them.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

My mistake; thank you for the correction.

[travmatt]

I wish I could see the exact moment Denton realized his glibness would help cause the destruction of the business he created.

[ryanswapp]

It definitely could be the case that the jurors came up with the numbers they did in order to put Gawker out of business. However, a jury can't just make a random number up. The awarded amount has to be supported by evidence or an appeals court will strike it down as unconstitutional.

I've been involved in a number of trials and my experience leads me to believe that a lot of what is behind a damages award has to do with the show put on by the plaintiffs attorney. If the plaintiffs attorney can anchor high and get experts to support the damages they are asking for anything can happen. This is perhaps one of the main downsides/upsides to a trial by jury. Depending on which side you are on this is a good or very bad thing.

[phonon]

Florida judge and jury, Florida celebrity plaintiff, NY defendant, A.J. Daulerio acting, umm, very unsympathetically? I think that gets you part way there...