nepatz11

I know Libel is very tough to prove. Can anyone give any insight as to when an dif the Patriots may want to consider filing some libel lawsuits. I think the team has been unfairly slandered based on the remarkable lack of evidence that has come out over the past 6 months, the relative widespread nature of this practice as well as the negligible impact of their supposed transgression in the first place. I really think they need to go on the offensive at this point.

signbabybrady

I would highly doubt that they go this route as you said it is real difficult to proove.

The only reason I could see them doing it is as a PR move. Not in actuall hopes of winning but just to show that they will go on the offensive and that they back up their employees.

Lets say the Patriots wanted to go after the Herald over Thomase article.
The problem there is while Thomase was being irresponsible as a journalist he did nothing illegal. He reported what a source told him. He may have been irresponsible in when he published and in checking his facts but all he would really owe is a retraction.

Unless you could prove that Thomase did this with the intent to harm the Patriots.

__________________

nepatz11

What about someone who has consistently slandered them like GRegg Eatserbrook with no evidence? are you an attorney?

PatsFaninAZ

Where did Easterbrook slander them? (For what it's worth, I think you mean libel.)

The answer here is a simple no. They should not do this. And if they tried, they would lose. Open the national enquirer some day.

Short of an admission, say, from Tomasse that he did not have a source and made it up, there is nothing actionable that I've read.

Just let it go.

upstater1

They don't have a case for libel.

On the other hand, I think Matt Walsh has a case for slander.

He should sue the Patriots and Scott Pioli.

After all, Walsh's lawyer, after hearing Pioli completely trash his clinet's repuation, claimed that Pioli had made up a "total fabrication."

Walsh should sue Pioli.

Palm Beach Pats Fan

If he has "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then he should go ahead.

If it's his word vs. theirs, then he would be flushing legal fees down the crapper.

signbabybrady

You are right....Piolis comments were made with the intent of harming Walsh's image too, trying to show him a the scandalous employee they fired....So I assume than that the story is true because Pioli would not open himself and the patriots up to that kind of a suite. They would be much more careful than that.

__________________

upstater1

Nope. It doesn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is on the Patriots to show evidence.

If I said you sleep with goats (No offense, Tom) the burden would not be on you to prove that you don't.

ctpatsfan77

Just for the record, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan set the standard for libel cases involving 'public' figures (the Patriots would meet that definition): the plaintiff must prove that the defendant published information with "knowledge that the information was false," or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

And, don't forget, that the Herald itself was found guilty of libel in 2005.

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PatsFaninAZ

The standard of proof in a libel case involving a public figure is "clear and convincing evidence," which is higher than "preponderance of the evidence," and less than "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The burden is always on the plaintiff -- that is, the one saying he was defamed.

If what Pioli said was false, Walsh might have a claim, although it would likely be for slander not libel. Walsh is probably not a public figure, so his case would be easier to maintain that would be a case by the Patriots against Walsh (or against a newspaper).