Hulk Hogan is mad at Gawker! Hulk Hogan is upset because the legal battle between the wrestler and Gawker over his sex tape is escalating. Hogan won a restraining order from to keep the site from posting the sex video. But Gawker only removed the footage, not the description of the video. Gawker also supplied a link to another video. So last week, a Florida judge granted The Hulk's appeal for a temporary restraining order. Gawker was ordered to pull all excerpts, clips, photos and transcripts.

After that, Gawker, being Gawker, took down the sex tape...but not a 1,400-word graphic description of the video penned by by A.J. Daulerio, a former Gawker editor. They also still linked to to another website hosting the XXX-rated tape. Gawker wrote, "The Constitution does unambiguously accord us the right to publish true things about public figures."

Gawker appealed the ruling. On Monday morning, a Florida appeals court issued an emergency stay of the temporary injunction regarding their description of the tape in question. Hogan now wants Gawker to be held in civil contempt for disobeying Judge Pamela Campbell's instruction "to remove the written narrative describing the private sexual encounter." The injunction reads, in part, that "even if the terms of an injunction are inconsistent with the First Amendment, a party has no right to disobey it but must challenge the injunction through legal channels."

It goes on to say, "The Order prohibits 'posting, publishing, exhibiting, or broadcasting' the footage," says the court filing. "Linking to the footage falls within this definition."

The two sides, it seems, will keep arguing it out in court. They will soon appear at the District Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit in Florida arguing the First Amendment issues at hand. Hogan plans to seek monetary sanctions, attorney's fees and further relief. Gawker has filed a motion for a stay, writing the lower court's order was in error because Hogan's arguments were "collaterally estopped" by earlier decisions by a federal judge; that this action comprises "prior restraint" in violation of the First Amendment, ignoring legal precedent. They also protest that the judge didn't watch the tape and didn't plan to, that parties had not been served, and that Hogan failed to post a bond.