Hulk Hogan Sex Tape: Gawker Fires Back, Claims "Nine Seconds of Sexual Activity" Isn't Worth $100 Million

Website maintains it did nothing wrong by posting 101 seconds of a tape that had already made national news months beforehand; Hogan is suing for, among other things, invasion of privacy

By Natalie Finn Nov 03, 2012 2:54 AMTags
Hulk HoganPaul Hawthorne/Getty Images

If people want to gawk at a Hulk Hogan sex tape, who is Gawker to deny them?

Or so Gawker Media is arguing in court documents firing back at Hogan, who sued last month for $100 million, accusing the website of invasion of privacy and other torts for posting 101 seconds of the tape featuring the wrestling icon and the ex-wife of radio shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge.

Gawker maintains that, by the time the footage was leaked to them, the sex tape was already "the subject of widespread public discussion" and details of Hogan's encounter were "national news," according to the motion filed today in U.S. District Court in Florida and obtained by E! News.

Hogan also sued Bubba (real name Todd Alan Clem) and his ex, Heather Clem, but they announced Monday that a settlement had been reached

The former Hogan Knows Best star—who, while making the media rounds said that he had sex with Clem during a "very, very low point" of his life roughly six years ago but had no idea he was being filmed—is seeking an injunction that would require Gawker to take the footage off its site. He is also suing for damages.

A judge denied the request for an immediate injunction, instead opting to give Gawker more time to file its response.

And so they have, stating that there was "no publication of private facts" on their part and that Hogan is seeking an "unconstitutional prior restraint."

Hogan's claim that the posting of what amounted to "roughly nine seconds of sexual activity in extremely grainy footage amidst otherwise uneventful conversation" warrants $100 million—as well as the imposition of a constructive trust, the disclosure of a confidential source and the entry of prior restraint in derogation of the First Amendment—is "exaggerated," to say the least, today's filing states.

 A hearing on the injunction request is scheduled for Nov. 8.