Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea
129 So. 3d 1196 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A temporary injunction preventing the media from publishing content about a public figure that relates to a matter of public concern constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, even if the content is sexually explicit and was originally obtained unlawfully by a third party not affiliated with the publisher.
Facts:
- In 2006, Terry Bollea, a well-known professional wrestler and public figure also known as Hulk Hogan, engaged in an extramarital sexual encounter.
- This encounter was videotaped, allegedly without Bollea's knowledge or consent.
- Bollea is a public figure who had previously discussed his personal life, including his marriage and sex life, in a published autobiography and various media outlets.
- Gawker Media received a copy of the videotape from an anonymous source for no compensation.
- On or about October 4, 2012, Gawker Media published a written article on its website about the affair, which included brief video excerpts from the sexual encounter.
- Prior to Gawker's publication, the existence of the tape was a subject of public discussion, fueled in part by Bollea's own comments to entertainment media outlets.
Procedural Posture:
- Terry Bollea filed a multi-count complaint against Gawker Media in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
- Bollea filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the federal court, seeking to enjoin Gawker from publishing the video excerpts.
- The federal court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding it would be an unconstitutional prior restraint.
- Bollea voluntarily dismissed his federal action.
- Bollea filed an amended complaint asserting essentially the same claims in a Florida state circuit court.
- Bollea then filed a motion for a temporary injunction in the state circuit court.
- The circuit court granted Bollea's motion for a temporary injunction, without making any findings to support its decision.
- Gawker Media, as appellant, appealed the circuit court's order to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal, with Terry Bollea as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a temporary injunction that prohibits a media company from publishing excerpts of a sexually explicit video involving a public figure constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech in violation of the First Amendment when the subject matter has become one of public concern?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Black
Yes, a temporary injunction that prohibits a media company from publishing excerpts of a sexually explicit video involving a public figure constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech when the subject matter is one of public concern. Prior restraints on speech are the most serious infringement on First Amendment rights and are presumptively unconstitutional. Although the video involves private and sexually explicit content, Bollea's status as a public figure and his own public discussions of his personal life turned his affair and the existence of the videotape into a matter of legitimate public concern. Citing Bartnicki v. Vopper, the court reasoned that even if the tape was unlawfully created by a third party, the First Amendment protects the publication of lawfully obtained information on matters of public importance. Because Gawker Media did not participate in the illegal creation of the tape and the content is newsworthy, the injunction acts as an impermissible prior restraint on protected speech.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the high constitutional barrier against prior restraints, affirming that even highly sensitive or salacious content involving a public figure can be considered a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment. It clarifies that a public figure's own actions in discussing their private life can significantly weaken their privacy claims against the media. The case solidifies the principle from Bartnicki v. Vopper, extending it to protect publishers who lawfully obtain and report on newsworthy information, even if the source's acquisition of that information was illegal. This creates a significant shield for the press when reporting on matters involving information that was leaked or illicitly recorded by third parties.
Unlock the full brief for Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea