In another motion, Hogan's attorneys attempted to get a motion by Gawker to dismiss the lawsuit thrown out. Hogan is claiming that the federal court lacks the grounds to dismiss the case since it should have remained in the Florida State courts to begin with.
Should the court not agree that the case should be transferred back to a State case, Hogan is arguing that the First Amendment does not give Gawker the right to "trammel" Hogan's rights by posting video of him "for all the world to see."
Hogan's attorneys also argued that while the "fact" of the story itself "may be newsworthy" (this is in response to Gawker claiming it is), posting unblurred highlights of the tape in question is a violation of Hogan's privacy and not protected by the First Amendment. They also argue that its no different than the First Amendment not protecting someone if they scream "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is none.
They are also arguing that the fact that Hogan mentioned sexual encounters with someone else in his autobiography or may have addressed the potential of a tape in the past does not mean he has given up his rights to privacy in the matter. They also noted that he sued as soon as he was aware the tape existed, and once again claimed he had no knowledge he was being filmed at the time.
They also argued that Gawker posting a private video online for free is not journalism but something more akin to using the video for commercial profit and should it be allowed, the message the court is sending is that anyone who has some level of celebrity must give up their rights to anything that happens in the privacy of their bedroom.