ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
A misquote of a public figure's statement can be a basis for a libel suit only if (1) the misquote was altered with malice, (2) the context of the article was such that readers would assume the quote was an actual quote not a paraphrase, (3) the change in quote constitutes a significant and defamatory difference. Masson v. New York Magazine. U.S. Supreme Court, 1991.
Moreover, a single instance of misquoting in one article is virtually never a basis for libel unless it fundamentally changes the meaning in a way that constitutes defamation per se.
This is not actionable libel.
Point by point, I'll argue it does:
1) Kravitz has by now been fully informed of the misquote. If he or the Indy Star do NOT issue a correction/retraction, then there IS malice.
2) No one can argue against that the "readers would assume the quote was an actual quote not a paraphrase"
3) "Significant and defammatory difference" can be argued here. Vrabel is from the Midwest, played at OSU, still is big in that region. He has stated that after the NFL he wants to get into coaching. You don't think misquoting him in a Midwestern paper does him any damages going forward? It can definitely BE ARGUED.
__________________
"They (Patriots) may be the greatest team ever" - Chris Mortenson, January 18, 2005 on espn.com
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
I am daily amazed at the laziness of these columnists. Can't they even be bothered to do some simple fact-checking? It would seem that sports columns are held to about the same standards as internet message boards.
Actually, if there was a simple misquoting of a public figure as the basis for a thread on this board, it would be gone the minute a Mod would see it.
The IndyStar doesn't live up to our standards!
__________________
"They (Patriots) may be the greatest team ever" - Chris Mortenson, January 18, 2005 on espn.com
Regardless if he has a case, it would be a terrible PR move for Vrabel to pursue legal action, it would only validate a media article and bring much wider attention to something that will be yesterdays forgotten news, well, tomorrow, imho.
I would bet BB would not welcome the attention something like this would bring.
1) Kravitz has by now been fully informed of the misquote. If he or the Indy Star do NOT issue a correction/retraction, then there IS malice.
2) No one can argue against that the "readers would assume the quote was an actual quote not a paraphrase"
3) "Significant and defammatory difference" can be argued here. Vrabel is from the Midwest, played at OSU, still is big in that region. He has stated that after the NFL he wants to get into coaching. You don't think misquoting him in a Midwestern paper does him any damages going forward? It can definitely BE ARGUED.
Not really. Misquotes happen all the time. If they are of public figures, they're almost always not actionable.
1) But there's no pubication, which is the first element of defamation/libel. If the malice is aquired after publication, but there is no new publication, then there's no libel. There's no action for wrongful failure to retract after aquiring malice.
2) Read the case. In this case there is an even more significant problem that what the reporter is misquoting is another's report of the quote. This wouldn't qualify.
3) Damages isn't what this element was about. The point is that you can't base a libel suit merely on the fact that the words inside the marks weren't actually spoken, if the misquoted person is a public figure. Not only must there be a misquote, but it must be a substantial misquote in a way that fundamentally alters the character of what was said. The fact that vrabel actually used the words "washed up" in connection with a comment about something said by Shula, and it is the only purported misquote in the article, makes it a no brainer legally.
Can it be argued? I guess in the sense that Vrabel could file a complaint and it might take several months before it got dismissed.
In any event, the key point is that the mere fact that the words in the quote marks were not the words Vrabel spoke does not make it libelous.
Last edited by PatsFaninAZ; 11-09-2007 at 08:49 AM..
1) Kravitz has by now been fully informed of the misquote. If he or the Indy Star do NOT issue a correction/retraction, then there IS malice.
2) No one can argue against that the "readers would assume the quote was an actual quote not a paraphrase"
3) "Significant and defammatory difference" can be argued here. Vrabel is from the Midwest, played at OSU, still is big in that region. He has stated that after the NFL he wants to get into coaching. You don't think misquoting him in a Midwestern paper does him any damages going forward? It can definitely BE ARGUED.
I think the crux of the problem here, Shmess, is that Vrabel would have to present evidence in court that the piece caused damage. The writer did a crappy thing, but extrapolating that into tangible damage to Vrabel's career is speculatory at best. IF this bothers Vrabel, he should have his lawyer contact the newspaper and the writer's editor with the tape of what Vrabel said and demand a correction.
Of course, your only point of reference would be Judge Judy.
Uh, good one
I guess it is a bye week, by it appears as though you are pretty serious about this whole thing. Don't you have anything better to do, like moderate and scold those who use the term "cheatrianapolis""??
Last edited by He Ban Me; 11-09-2007 at 08:53 AM..
Re: What Are the Libel Laws in Indiana?
Linear Mode
