resdubwhite
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2009
- Messages
- 4,681
- Reaction score
- 2,419
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Can any of the lawyers here comment on the potential for a defamation case over this whole deflategate thing generally? I somewhat understand the leeway the media has with public figures, but I also understand there is an obligation to retract and correct libel statements when they are found to be wrong. Would any of the lawyers argue that obligation starts when presented with almost irrefutable evidence (such as the science of the PSI) that dismisses the narrative the media has been running with?
Edit: I'm not convinced the Patriots have no recourse against the NFL, even if under contract not to sue. There are implied terms under a contract, and no contract would give the NFL the unmitigated right to do whatever the f*** it wants without consequence.
Example: It appears Goodell has an almost arbitrary means of arriving at punishment given the wording. It seems it would be implied though that whatever punishment arrived at must still be based on actual misconduct.
I'll take a hack at this.
Just going with a thumbnail sketch, the big case on defamation with respect to media is New York Times v. Sullivan which is a US Supreme Court case that basically said that reporters could write about and publish alleged civil rights violations in the Deep South during the 60's. Previously, Alabama state courts had ruled against the NYT. Basing its decision on freedom of press and speech as guaranteed by the 1st and 14th amendments, the USSC raised the burden for a plaintiff to prove defamation by requiring that a statement is:
1 - Defamatory - which requires proof of transmission of false statements which cause damage to someone's reputation. Lets assume for now that those publishing comments about the Patriots these days could be found to have made defamatory statements. In a real suit, there'd be problems with the 2nd element of falsehood, as many have so stupidly claimed over the last week, and possibly the 3rd element, depending on what exactly any given reporter wrote.
2 - A defamatory statement must also be made with actual malice in the case of public figures (silly to argue argue Brady, Belichick, Kraft or the Patriots aren't public figures) - which is "a showing of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth."
Proof of actual malice is a pretty high standard for any defamation plaintiff to clear, especially because most of what is being put into the media will be asserted as constitutionally protected opinion. I think its fair to say that the media has enough protection to speculate on this topic, given what they believe to be true based on all other sorts of other (albeit, crappy) reporting.
What about Goodell? As much as we would like to see him go down in flames, I think a repeat from the bounty situation in New Orleans is likely. In Vilma v. Goodell, Vilma sued the big G for defamation in Louisiana. The court dismissed the case because 1) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (which allowed Goodell to investigate and suspend players, and also contains a non-suit provision) and a general rule against defamation claims that arise from an arbitration. 2) Even if the CBA issue from 1) wasn't an issue, Vilma's defamation claim still failed to sufficiently assert actual malice (from above) because Goodell could have reasonably believed what he said after his investigation into the bounty situation. So, the case fell apart before the trial started (what is known as a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim).
Yeah I was only referring to a potential defamation suit, not anything regarding the investigation itself, really.That's all fine and dandy for if/when it ever sees the inside of a court room, but Roger Goodell lobbied the owners to lower the burden of proof for these investigations substantially.
That was done way back in 2008. It's unfortunate, but true.
Minehane and Ron Bogus wants to know why Kraft wants an apology, these guys are friggin idiots, Bogus says why, they found 11 flat balls, really Ron? Flat balls or slightly underinflated balls, what a freaking moron
Borges really did a hatchet job. Says this could cost Brady the Hall of Fame, at least make sure he wasn't in on the first ballot.Minehane and Ron Bogus wants to know why Kraft wants an apology, these guys are friggin idiots, Bogus says why, they found 11 flat balls, really Ron? Flat balls or slightly underinflated balls, what a freaking moron
and THAT would be an embarrassment to the league.Borges really did a hatchet job. Says this could cost Brady the Hall of Fame, at least make sure he wasn't in on the first ballot.
Belichick outright refuses to speak to Peter King, so that should tell you what kind of a slimy little f*** he is.[/QUOTE
What a miserable, bloodless prick he is.Borges really did a hatchet job. Says this could cost Brady the Hall of Fame, at least make sure he wasn't in on the first ballot.
Borges really did a hatchet job. Says this could cost Brady the Hall of Fame, at least make sure he wasn't in on the first ballot.
10 minutes later...Florio:The Patriots are guilty....unless they're not? Foul play by NFL suspected.
Anybody want to go looking for Sasquatch? Yeti? flat earth?
Fo'real, why do you people keep tuning into Felger and Mazz?
The words "Felger" and "Mazz" outta be censored on these forums. It'd be a start. We should start a petition.I don't tune in to anyone, actually. I have my car radio on either EEI or 98.5 to get sports news on those few occasions I drive (I work at home).
Today I went to 630 on Direct TV just to see what the Boston media was saying. Saw about 5 minutes, couldn't believe the crap, and turned it off.
98.5 is coming off my presets.