What Are the Libel Laws in Indiana?

[shmessy]

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071109/COLUMNISTS01/711090434/1034/COLUMNISTS01

Old, washed-up coach.
That must be what it says because that's what Patriots linebacker Mike Vrabel called Shula the other day. Shula drew Vrabel's ire after the former Colts and Dolphins coach had the audacity to say what many NFL coaches and players think:
That whatever this year's Patriots accomplish -- a perfect season, a Super Bowl, whatever -- it will be accompanied by an asterisk because they stole opponents' signals.
Maybe not an actual asterisk, as in "*hey, they cheated,'' but a mental asterisk, an implied asterisk, one that you know belongs there without actually being there.
Vrabel, when asked about Shula's opinion, could have shown a modicum of respect and simply said he disagreed with Shula. Instead, he dismissed the former coach's views and called Shula an "old, washed-up coach.''
_______________

Vrabel never called him that. Kravitz is putting it in quotes that Vrabel used those words on Shula.

 

[WWJDD]

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071109/COLUMNISTS01/711090434/1034/COLUMNISTS01

Old, washed-up coach.
That must be what it says because that's what Patriots linebacker Mike Vrabel called Shula the other day. Shula drew Vrabel's ire after the former Colts and Dolphins coach had the audacity to say what many NFL coaches and players think:
That whatever this year's Patriots accomplish -- a perfect season, a Super Bowl, whatever -- it will be accompanied by an asterisk because they stole opponents' signals.
Maybe not an actual asterisk, as in "*hey, they cheated,'' but a mental asterisk, an implied asterisk, one that you know belongs there without actually being there.
Vrabel, when asked about Shula's opinion, could have shown a modicum of respect and simply said he disagreed with Shula. Instead, he dismissed the former coach's views and called Shula an "old, washed-up coach.''
_______________

Vrabel never called him that. Kravitz is putting it in quotes that Vrabel used those words on Shula.

You cannot base a libel suit on an opinion - simple as that. Libel suits can only be based on false statements of fact.

 

[Solaris]

Glad to see the media can misquote as always. He called him an old coach. He said the players were washed up. But who cares, another day another dig. What else is new? Lots and lots of jealousy because by the time this season's over the Patriots will have re-written most of the record books.

 

[shmessy]

You cannot base a libel suit on an opinion - simple as that. Libel suits can only be based on false statements of fact.

Exactly. Kravitz wasn't stating an opinion. (read the column)

He stated that Vrabel called Shula "a washed up old coach". He put it in quotations. Vrabel never said such a thing. He called the PLAYERS "washed up old players".

Black and white libel.

 

[Tunescribe]

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071109/COLUMNISTS01/711090434/1034/COLUMNISTS01

Old, washed-up coach.
That must be what it says because that's what Patriots linebacker Mike Vrabel called Shula the other day. Shula drew Vrabel's ire after the former Colts and Dolphins coach had the audacity to say what many NFL coaches and players think:
That whatever this year's Patriots accomplish -- a perfect season, a Super Bowl, whatever -- it will be accompanied by an asterisk because they stole opponents' signals.
Maybe not an actual asterisk, as in "*hey, they cheated,'' but a mental asterisk, an implied asterisk, one that you know belongs there without actually being there.
Vrabel, when asked about Shula's opinion, could have shown a modicum of respect and simply said he disagreed with Shula. Instead, he dismissed the former coach's views and called Shula an "old, washed-up coach.''
_______________

Vrabel never called him that. Kravitz is putting it in quotes that Vrabel used those words on Shula.

Vrabel was misquoted, he called the Dolphins players old and washed up, not Shula. To claim libel he'd have to build a case for being deliberately misquoted ("malice of forethought"). Kravitz can, and should, absolve himself by having a correction printed.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Exactly. Kravitz wasn't stating an opinion. (read the column) He put it in quotations.

:agree:

If you put it in quotes, you are, by definition, attributing those words to that person. At that point, it's a matter of fact.

 

[shmessy]

Where did WWJDD go?

 

[Bella*chick]

Exactly. Kravitz wasn't stating an opinion. (read the column)

He stated that Vrabel called Shula "a washed up old coach". He put it in quotations. Vrabel never said such a thing. He called the PLAYERS "washed up old players".

Black and white libel.

Naw, just a misquote. Libel has some seriously stringent requirements. The statements have to destroy the person's good standing in the community. I don't think that particular misquote comes even close.

A libelous statment would be something along the lines of "So and so cheats on his taxes and stole money from charity." And it has to do damage to the person's reputation in the community.

What Easterbroo did with Belichick was way closer, except it was fuzzy whether or not it was his "opinion" and Belichick is a pretty well known public figure. Both of those things weaken a case for libel.

 

[shmessy]

Naw, just a misquote. Libel has some seriously stringent requirements. The statements have to destroy the person's good standing in the community. I don't think that particular misquote comes even close.

A libelous statment would be something along the lines of "So and so cheats on his taxes and stole money from charity." And it has to do damage to the person's reputation in the community.

What Easterbroo did with Belichick was way closer, except it was fuzzy whether or not it was his "opinion" and Belichick is a pretty well known public figure. Both of those things weaken a case for libel.

If the misquote is not corrected by Kravitz or his newspaper after it has been pointed out to them, it is considered a deliberate falsification. That IS a basis for a libel suit.

Further, the misquote was used as the BASIS for the Kravitz column. It was the central point of it. If it's a mistake, then they have to correct it. If it is deliberate and they don't issue a correction, then Vrabel has them dead to right.

 

[godef]

You cannot base a libel suit on an opinion - simple as that. Libel suits can only be based on false statements of fact.

You misunderstand. The alleged libel is the Indy sportswriter saying that Vrabel said those things.

 

[tatepatsfan]

In Indiana, in order to prove libel (which is a subset of defamation), one must prove 4 things:

1. a communication with defamatory imputation
2. malice
3. publication
4. damages

 

[He Ban Me]

You guys are actually Hoity enough to think that a court of Law would listen to such a suit

 

[tatepatsfan]

No I don't think this suit would stand up. Sure makes for a fun discussion though.

 

[bradmahn]

You guys are actually Hoity enough to think that a court of Law would listen to such a suit

I know, man. A court of law would probably just dismiss it as a midwestern inferiority complex.

Kravitz has proven himself a shmuck, right, Shmessy?

 

[shmessy]

I know, man. A court of law would probably just dismiss it as a midwestern inferiority complex.

Kravitz has proven himself a shmuck, right, Shmessy?

Yup. In black and white. Also, libelous, since it is there and not an opinion. It was a statement. He can of course, correct and /or apologize and that would take the "malice" point off. But if he is informed of it and sticks to his guns, Mike Vrabel has him dead to right legally.

 

[shmessy]

You guys are actually Hoity enough to think that a court of Law would listen to such a suit

A court of law is, by definition, "hoity".

Of course, your only point of reference would be Judge Judy.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

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.

 

[kolbitr]

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.

Once more the reason why BB has instructed his players to say nothing of interest to the media. Vrabel was feisty, and now he is being misquoted and pilloried.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Yup. In black and white. Also, libelous, since it is there and not an opinion. It was a statement. He can of course, correct and /or apologize and that would take the "malice" point off. But if he is informed of it and sticks to his guns, Mike Vrabel has him dead to right legally.

If the original statement was not published with malice, he doesn't need to retract unless he intends to republish, even if he discovers he was wrong.

 

[OtisCampbell]

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.

Will we be getting your bill?