A reminder on defamation involving public figures

ctpatsfan77 said:

I've mentioned this a few times here, and a few times on Reddit.

For Brady, Kraft, the Patriots, etc., to prevail in a defamation case, they must prove the poorly-named actual malice.

Three important points about actual malice:

• Actual malice does not require intent to cause harm per se.
• It does, however, require reckless disregard for the truth. Brady would have to prove, for example, that either the NFL knew that what they were saying was incorrect, or that they entertained serious doubts regarding its veracity.
• It is not sufficient to simply prove that the information is false. Nor is simple incompetence sufficient.

Click to expand...

also keep in mind as my lawyer has told me. there are no absolutes in the law. anything can happen.

Neither McNally nor Jastremski are public figures. What's their burden after having been labeled liars, cheats and unethical?

h0c2000 said:

Neither McNally nor Jastremski are public figures. What's their burden after having been labeled liars, cheats and unethical?

Click to expand...

It depends on whether they are considered public figures w.r.t. this issue. If not, they only have to show that the allegations are false, and that they have been harmed.

Bobsyouruncle said:

In these cases would Brady be able to get access to NFL E-mails and company phones?

I'm no lawyer so at the risk of sounding foolish the 10.1 psi letter sounds like a reasonable argument. Maybe not a winning argument because the NFL could IMO argue they have no responsibility to correct the media.

I'm also curious about the NFL network. It would seem unusual in these cases that the people accused of defamation own a mass media vehicle. Is it unreasonable to say that if they allowed their own network to report information they knew to be factually incorrect, but didn't give them the correct information that could hurt them? Not only are they then complicit, but arguably taking action to perpetuate a lie.

I'm not a fan of the UK version of the law.

Click to expand...

That's a really interesting point! If the false psi was reported by a network under the ownership, direction, and control of the NFL, that sounds like a case to me.

The question I keep asking but, can't find an answer to, is whether there are any venue restricting agreements in play here? If Brady can get a MA venue against the NFL, I'd love to see what a MA jury will do to the Goodell and his minions for defaming a iconic Boston sports figure.

ctpatsfan77 said:

I've mentioned this a few times here, and a few times on Reddit.

For Brady, Kraft, the Patriots, etc., to prevail in a defamation case, they must prove the poorly-named actual malice.

Three important points about actual malice:

• Actual malice does not require intent to cause harm per se.
• It does, however, require reckless disregard for the truth. Brady would have to prove, for example, that either the NFL knew that what they were saying was incorrect, or that they entertained serious doubts regarding its veracity.
• It is not sufficient to simply prove that the information is false. Nor is simple incompetence sufficient.

Click to expand...

The smoking gun against the League would be that Wells took everything Walt Anderson remembered as truth, but disregarded his recollection of which gauge he used because that gauge had higher readings (or would prove that the Pats' footballs fell in the ideal gas law). That seems to be a reckless disregard of the truth. It really looks that they picked and chose what

Another thing not talked about when people talk about Brady having to give up his cell phone (or texts and records) if he sues for defamation is that Brady's side will have subpoena power to get cell and regular phone records of League officials such as Kensil. What if Kensil has a record of speaking to Chris Mortensen within 24 hours of Mort running that bogus report of 2 PSI? Or Kensil speaking with Kelly Naqi quite a bit before her story? I don't think the League wants this more than Brady because any phone record of League personnel speaking to the media around the time of the leaks can prove malice. Also, it will get Goodell and his staff in hot water outside of the courts too.

Speaking of the cell phones, Pat Kirwan said last night when he asked Don Yee if Goodell called Brady into his office and asked to see what is on his cell phone, Yee felt Brady would. Yee intimated that Brady just didn't trust the Wells investigation and not that he didn't want to give up his cell phone.

ctpatsfan77 said:

It depends on whether they are considered public figures w.r.t. this issue. If not, they only have to show that the allegations are false, and that they have been harmed.

Click to expand...

You have to be a public figure before the incident you are suing about, not because of it. No one would have ever know of McNally or Jastremski if it wasn't for Deflategate.

In fact, the fact that they have become public figures because of Deflategate only bolsters their case at least in terms of damages.

Rob0729 said:

You have to be a public figure before the incident you are suing about, not because of it. No one would have ever know of McNally or Jastremski if it wasn't for Deflategate.

Click to expand...

one would think so, but apparently courts haven't always agreed. It is possible to be considered a public figure w.r.t. a single issue.

Here's a question for you folks who know about these things - in the USA, to what extent is a journalist allowed to protect his/her sources?

If Brady subpoenaed Chris Mortensen and Kelly Naqi as witnesses, can they be asked/forced to disclose their sources, or to confirm the source of their reports in any way? (e.g. working for the NFL, how they received the information, etc)

ANGR89 said:

I also want to know why when the nfl had the correct information all along they didn't tell the patriots the exact measurements for 64 days after game! And than with the stipulations they couldn't release that information to the public! Why not? They weren't allowed to defend themselves on those false reports. Seems to me long enough to make sure the public had the wrong information in their head long enough there was no changing their minds.

Click to expand...

Forget defending themselves in public. By, withholding the accurate information, the Patriots and all Patriots players and employees had to go thru the entire investigation, including adversarial interrogations by Wells, believing that balls at 10.1 psi and multiple balls 2 psi low had been found at halftime.

Fencer said:

What's the legal chance of finding Mort's leaker through discovery?

It would seem SOMEBODY defamed the Patriots by putting out very incorrect numbers, but we don't actually know who. Is there such a thing as a libel suit whose defendants are Mort and a John Doe? What's his legal position if he then tries to protect his source?

Click to expand...

Bumping my question.