Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea
129 So. 3d 1196
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Terry Bollea (Hulk Hogan) sued Gawker after it published an article and short video excerpts of a sex tape allegedly recorded without his consent.
- Bollea sought and lost a preliminary injunction in federal court; the federal court found such an injunction would be an unconstitutional prior restraint and denied relief.
- Bollea voluntarily dismissed the federal suit and refiled essentially the same claims in Florida circuit court, where he again moved for a temporary injunction.
- The Florida circuit court granted the temporary injunction without written findings and did not require Bollea to post an injunction bond.
- Gawker appealed; the Florida appellate court stayed the injunction and reviewed whether the injunction was an unconstitutional prior restraint and whether the federal denial precluded relitigation (collateral estoppel).
- The Florida appellate court reversed the temporary injunction as an unconstitutional prior restraint and declined to give preclusive effect to the federal court’s preliminary-injunction ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the temporary injunction was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech | Bollea argued the publication invaded his privacy and was based on unlawfully recorded material, justifying an injunction | Gawker argued the report and excerpts concern a matter of public concern and Gawker lawfully received the tape from a source, so First Amendment protects publication | Held: Reversed — injunction is an unconstitutional prior restraint because the material addressed a matter of public concern and Gawker lawfully obtained it from a source; heavy burden to justify prior restraint not met |
| Whether unlawful creation of the tape by a third party defeats First Amendment protection for a publisher who lawfully obtained it | Bollea contended the sex tape’s illegal creation removes First Amendment protection for anyone who disseminates it | Gawker relied on precedent that a publisher who lawfully obtains information on a matter of public concern may publish even if a source acted unlawfully | Held: Rejected Bollea’s claim — Bartnicki and related precedent protect publication when the publisher lawfully obtains info on public concern |
| Whether the federal court’s denial of a preliminary injunction has collateral estoppel effect in state court | Bollea implicitly argued the state court could reconsider; he refiled in state court after dismissing federal case | Gawker argued the federal denial was a prior adjudication that should preclude relitigation of the injunction issue | Held: Declined to apply collateral estoppel — the federal preliminary ruling was provisional and not sufficiently final or dispositive to be preclusive |
| Whether the circuit court erred in procedure (e.g., lack of findings or bond) | Bollea proceeded without challenging procedural defects in this appeal | Gawker noted procedural defects including lack of written findings and failure to require an injunction bond | Held: Court reversed on First Amendment grounds; opinion also notes procedural errors (no bond, no findings) undermined the injunction though primary reversal grounded in unconstitutional prior restraint |
Key Cases Cited
- Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) (prior restraints on publication are presumptively unconstitutional)
- Neb. Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (heavy burden for prior restraints; each day of restraint is a distinct First Amendment injury)
- Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) (publisher who lawfully obtains information on public concern may publish even if source acted unlawfully)
- N.Y. Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (government cannot impose prior restraints on publication of matters of public concern)
- In re Providence Journal Co., 820 F.2d 1342 (1st Cir. 1987) (status quo for news media is prompt publication; restraints impede editorial discretion)
- Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) (speech on matters of public concern receives robust First Amendment protection)
- Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) (First Amendment protects speech on matters of public interest even if offensive)
- Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989) (newsworthy information obtained lawfully may be published despite statutory mishandling by government)