Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Communications Law

University of Florida Levin College of Law

Series

2017

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress & The Hulk Hogan Sex Tape: Examining A Forgotten Cause Of Action In Bollea V. Gawker Media, The Gap It Reveals In Iied’S Constitutionalization, And A Path Forward For Revenge Porn Victims, Clay Calvert Jan 2017

Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress & The Hulk Hogan Sex Tape: Examining A Forgotten Cause Of Action In Bollea V. Gawker Media, The Gap It Reveals In Iied’S Constitutionalization, And A Path Forward For Revenge Porn Victims, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines Hulk Hogan's successful, yet largely overlooked, cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) before a Florida jury in 2016 in Bollea v. Gawker Media, LLC. In doing so, the Article explores critical factual differences between Bollea and the U.S. Supreme Court's two decisions constitutionalizing the IIED tort, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell and Snyder v. Phelps. Despite such distinctions, the Article discusses the trial court's instruction to the jury to consider a First Amendment-­based, public-concern defense - one closely akin to that in Snyder - on Hulk Hogan's IIED claim. The Article also …


Indecency Four Years After Fox Television Stations: From Big Papi To A Porn Star, An Egregious Mess At The Fcc Continues, Clay Calvert, Minch Minchin, Keran Billaud, Kevin Bruckenstein, Tershone Phillips Jan 2017

Indecency Four Years After Fox Television Stations: From Big Papi To A Porn Star, An Egregious Mess At The Fcc Continues, Clay Calvert, Minch Minchin, Keran Billaud, Kevin Bruckenstein, Tershone Phillips

UF Law Faculty Publications

Using the WDBJ case as an analytical springboard, this article examines the tumultuous state of the FCC's indecency enforcement regime more than three years after the Supreme Court's June 2012 opinion in Fox Television Stations. Part I of this article briefly explores the missed First Amendment opportunities in Fox Television Stations, as well as some possible reasons why the Supreme Court chose to avoid the free-speech questions in that case." Part II addresses the FCC's decision in September 2012 to target only egregious instances of broadcast indecency and, in the process, to jettison hundreds of thousands of complaints that had …