How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action?

[DarrylS]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

The use of the word "sadly" is interesting.. is it a sad event??

 

[shmessy]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

The use of the word "sadly" is interesting.. is it a sad event??

That is his opinion and he's fully entitled to it.

The rub was with misstatement of fact. He consciously did so because he was informed on two separate occasions about the fact. If the website consciously left it up there without correction/retraction AFTER being informed , then they would be potentially exposed to libel damages.

 

[dex13]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

Arrested? What????? Who said anything about being arrested?

No, Mr. Shapiro is taking a position at the Univerisity of Wisconsin next month as a Professor of Journalism.

There is a lot of leverage in that situation to get a full and public retraction for writing something he was shown as untrue in December and CONSCIOUSLY decided to repeat yesterday. He has been fully aware of the facts about this since mid-December.

The Journalism Department at the University of Wisconsin would be interested regarding who is teaching its students in the "craft".

which UW? went to grad school in Madison and I'm hoping it ain't there.

 

[Whorod]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

They are not tough standards. Especially in this case. The NFL released a statement that was PUBLISHED in the NY Times, Washington Post, and numerous other National Newspapers that clearly stated that the Patriots did NOT tape opponent practices nor did they gain an unfair competitive advantage. Any claim by Mr. Shapiro that he didn't know of the statement released by the NFL would be a bold faced lie.

Clearly, since several people have written to him with copies of siad statement, it falls into the "reckless disregard of truthfulness".

As for damage, spreading falsehoods about someone after they have been cleared of said wrongdoing is damaging their reputation. You don't have to prove MONETARY LOSS. And they don't need monetary compensation. A libel lawsuit would probably cost Mr. Shapiro his job at the University of Wisconsin. It would also be nearly impossible for him to get hired on with another newspaper.

Please think about this practically. Even if they could prove malice, and prove the elements necessary for the action, it does not make good business sense to spend a large chunk of money and time (time is money) for a case that will yield little monetary reward, and will make the Patriots look vindictive and petty.

As far as responses to the libelous action being proof that the original action was reckless, that is tenuous. He may believe that the Pats filmed walk throughs (regardless of what Angry Patriots fans like us tell him in the column reply notes), he wouldn't be alone, and the burden is on the Patriots to PROVE that is false, not the other way around.

All in all, not worth it to pursue libel when you are a public figure unless the action REALLY NEGATIVELY impacted you financially.

 

[shmessy]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

which UW? went to grad school in Madison and I'm hoping it ain't there.

That's the one.

 

[shmessy]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

As far as responses to the libelous action being proof that the original action was reckless, that is tenuous. He may believe that the Pats filmed walk throughs (regardless of what Angry Patriots fans like us tell him in the column reply notes), he wouldn't be alone, and the burden is on the Patriots to PROVE that is false, not the other way around.

There is nothing to prove. It's already there.

He wrote that the NFL penalized the Patriots for filming WALK-THROUGHS. Read correctly - - The NFL penalized them for THAT - - wrong!!!!

The whole world can see via the NFL's OWN WORDS when the penalty was handed down that it was for filming DURING GAMES (with 70,000+ people around who could do the same thing).

He did not write 'The Patriots filmed walk-throughs' (that WOULD be hard to prove false). He wrote 'the NFL PENALIZED them for filming walk-throughs' (that's a black and white objective slam-dunk).

There is no grey area about which you write. This is not a subjective issue. It is an objective issue. There is a clear difference between games in public and private walk-throughs. How much clearer can that be?

 

[lamafist]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

Epic fail.

He is an NFL Hall of Fame voter.

Huh? That doesn't have anything to do with it. He could be the King of Siam or a Burger Kind fry cook, and it wouldn't make a difference. The spygate story has been extensively reported. The fact that Belichick was fined for violating league rules is well documented. Mixing up what he was fined for videotaping is a minor error, and not grounds for libel.

Oh, and Epic Fail? What are you some l33t 4Chan /b/er who's been in a coma since 2003?

 

[Whorod]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

There is nothing to prove. It's already there.

He wrote that the NFL penalized the Patriots for filming WALK-THROUGHS. Read correctly - - The NFL penalized them for THAT - - wrong!!!!

The whole world can see via the NFL's OWN WORDS when the penalty was handed down that it was for filming DURING GAMES (with 70,000+ people around who could do the same thing).

He did not write 'The Patriots filmed walk-throughs' (that WOULD be hard to prove false). He wrote 'the NFL PENALIZED them for filming walk-throughs' (that's a black and white objective slam-dunk).

There is no grey area about which you write. This is not a subjective issue. It is an objective issue. There is a clear difference between games in public and private walk-throughs. How much clearer can that be?

I see your point, but this is all irrelevant, and I don't care to carry on an argument on this issue during a huge week for the Pats. My primary point is that there simply isn't enough incentive for plaintiffs to pursue libel actions unless they were severely damaged financially as a result of the libel. Does this clown deserve to be embarrassed if he intentionally misrepresented the facts? Sure. But in the end, it is rarely worth it for the public figure to pursue.

 

[letekro]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

Shmessy, if you mobilized this effectively in response to REAL injustice, we would probably have peace on earth by the close of business today.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

Huh? That doesn't have anything to do with it. He could be the King of Siam or a Burger Kind fry cook, and it wouldn't make a difference. The spygate story has been extensively reported. The fact that Belichick was fined for violating league rules is well documented. Mixing up what he was fined for videotaping is a minor error, and not grounds for libel.

Oh, and Epic Fail? What are you some l33t 4Chan /b/er who's been in a coma since 2003?

\^/41+ 4 (\/)1|\|1+3, `/()(_) (\/)34|\| +[-]15 15 |\|() |_()|\|63|2 <()()|_?

hold on, deLEETing ...

Ok, all kidding aside, I think the guy did more than a slip up by republishing a false claim (That the NFL fined BB for taping walk throughs), so I don't see this as a minor mistake.

However, suing him for libel isn't happening because the Patriots do not want spygate back in the media under any circumstances.

 

[alamo]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

A libel suit makes little sense because it's a waste of time. Also, the Patriots themselves are the injured party and would presumably have to be the ones bringing the suit, which will never happen.

But what should be the focus is getting the paper to issue a correction. And getting the proper documentation to the correct person in the correct way is likely to achieve that.

 

[shmessy]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

Oh, and Epic Fail? What are you some l33t 4Chan /b/er who's been in a coma since 2003?

What do you think I am - - some kind of bandwagonner????

My coma goes all the way back to 1974!!!

 

[Sciz]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

Dear [me],

Thank you for emailing us and calling our attention to the error in Len Shapiro's post on The League regarding Bill Belichick and the Jets. We have corrected the mistake in the text and noted it in a corrections box at the top of the post.

Sincerely,

Matt Vita
Sports Editor
The Washington Post

I win.

67890

 

[alamo]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

Nice. I missed earlier in the thread that there was a correction. It needs to be printed in the paper too.

This guy is showing off his football knowledge I see. His previous column from Dec 29?

Don't doubt the champs

The defending Super Bowl champion Saints proved Monday in Atlanta that they are ready to defend their title - and the rest of the NFC should take notice.

 

[patman52]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

For Belichick to have cheated, the Pats would have had to have gained a competitive advantage during the game in which the films were taped. That did not happen.

You, like to many other people, think that breaking a rule is cheating. And that is not the case. Just like every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square..

What is cheating then?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Re: How Does This Wash Post Columnist CONTINUE to Libel the Pats Without Legal Action

What is cheating then?

Cheating is deliberately breaking a rule to gain in game advantage. For example deliberately lining up PS players so that opposing special teams players can't go out of bounds (a legal move) and then tripping an opposing player. This is exacerbated by the head coach denying he knew about it while video shows him watching the entire incident.