Florida: WIth the intention to question the credibility of the quality of Gawker's journalistic quallity
Hulk Hogan's legal team summoned an expert witness. However, during a lengthy cross-examination in a St. Petersburg, Florida courtroom, an attorney for Gawker portrayed that same expert witness as someone who is out of touch with the new media landscape.
Hulk Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, is suing Gawker, its founder Nick Denton and former editor A.J. Daulerio for publishing a portion of his sex tape in 2012 in a $100 million lawsuit. He claims he was 'humiliated' and it was an invasion of privacy.
The defense team of Gawker defend their actions under the principles of free speech. They say that its publication of the video and the written commentary that accompanied the clip are protected by the First Amendment, given how much Hogan has publicly discussed his sex life and the amount of news coverage that had been devoted to the tape.
Appearing on the stand at the Pinellas County Judicial Building on the fourth day of Hogan's $100 million invasion of privacy trial against Gawker, University of Florida, journalism professor, Mike Foley was grilled on whether his background makes him a credible witness.
The attorney for Gawker, Michael Foley underlined that Mr Foley had not worked in a news room for 24 years and not worked as a reporter for 43 years.
Sullivan frequently employed the phrase "back in the day" to refer to Foley's time as a journalist at the St. Petersburg Times.
"When you were last in the newsroom, there was no Facebook, right?" Sullivan asked the witness. "There was no YouTube, right?"
When asked if he worked in an era when journalists were required to use Twitter, Foley said, "It didn't exist."
Foley appeared ruffled at times during his testimony, often pausing for long periods of time before offering a response.
Foley said that Gawker had a "right" to publish its written commentary on the sex tape, though, he said he would not have published such a story during his days as a newsman.
Written in an email to CNNMoney, SPJ ethics committee chairman Andrew Seaman contested the use of the plaintiff's ethics code in the trial.
Seaman claimed "The SPJ Code of Ethics is not relevant to whether an act is or is not legal. The words 'ethical' and 'legal' are not synonyms,"