Libel Lawsuits

[ctpatsfan77]

The reason that the NYTimes changed things is that a media organ was involved. The distinction I made was between something written or disseminated by a media organ with certain constitutional protections not given to an individual such as Pioli. He is held to different standards as an individual.

And I do agree with you that damages are more difficult to prove in a case of slander (as I wrote in the post above) but the actual case against the slanderer is easier. Both elements have to be there of course, and it's clear that the slander has to pertain to your professional reputation (i.e. you can call someone anything you like as long as you don't make claims against their career performance or accuse them of having committed a crime). Then it ventures into slander. Then the burden of proof shifts to the accuser, with the final element being that you, the accused, have to PROVE pecuniary damage.

Of course, as has been stated elsewhere on this board, the truth is an absolute defense to all defamation suits (in other words, if Pioli can demonstrate that what he says is true, Walsh would be SOL in a libel case, in addition to the likelihood that he is just a POS on general principle).

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

Well, it's to my understanding that the basic distinction between slander and libel is the medium of expression. By this I mean that one expresses slander through unrecorded, spoken speech, where as libel is expressed via a recorded medium be it text or video.

In the case with BB and Pioli, the intent of their verbal communication (this presumes that it was indeed a verbal communication or a conference call as opposed to a written statement issued to Reiss) was with the expressed intent that Reiss would transcribe the comments on record for publication. Hence the intent of this communication was so that it could be recorded, expressed and disseminated in print. I hardly think the three met up at a dinner party with BB and Pioli offering these damaging statement on Walsh off the record. Rather, their comments were most definitely on record.

And regardless of whether this was slander or libel, as PFinAZ noted, in either instance, Walsh needs to prove that the statements constituted a "reckless disregard for the truth" or that the intent was one of "malice."

Given Pioli has stated that Walsh's illegal conduct of secretly taping their conversation was first pointed out to him by other employees within the Pats organization, I cannot see how this constitutes a "reckless disregard for the truth" or the intent being that of "malice." He has corroborating witness to back up his claims. Further, what's more damaging to Walsh is that he has stated he is in possession of tapes whose nature is extremely suspect given his insistence on total and absolute indemnification.

 

[upstater1]

Well, it's to my understanding that the basic distinction between slander and libel is the medium of expression. By this I mean that one expresses slander through unrecorded, spoken speech, where as libel is expressed via a recorded medium be it text or video.

In the case with BB and Pioli, the intent of their verbal communication (this presumes that it was indeed a verbal communication or a conference call as opposed to a written statement issued to Reiss) was with the expressed intent that Reiss would transcribe the comments on record for publication. Hence the intent of this communication was so that it could be recorded, expressed and disseminated in print. I hardly think the three met up at a dinner party with BB and Pioli offering these damaging statement on Walsh off the record. Rather, their comments were most definitely on record.

And regardless of whether this was slander or libel, as PFinAZ noted, in either instance, Walsh needs to prove that the statements constituted a "reckless disregard for the truth" or that the intent was one of "malice."

Given Pioli has stated that Walsh's illegal conduct of secretly taping their conversation was first pointed out to him by other employees within the Pats organization, I cannot see how this constitutes a "reckless disregard for the truth" or the intent being that of "malice." He has corroborating witness to back up his claims. Further, what's more damaging to Walsh is that he has stated he is in possession of tapes whose nature is extremely suspect given his insistence on total and absolute indemnification.

We disagree. In the case of libel you need to prove malice. And, you don't need to prove pecuniary damage.

In the case of slander, you don't need to prove malice. You simply need to prove pecuniary damage, but only if the slander relates to your profession or if you're accused of a crime (or having a disease).

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

^And you really don't think the Pats team of lawyers were consulted on all this by BB, Pioli and the Krafts prior to issuing the statement on Walsh?

 

[upstater1]

^And you really don't think the Pats team of lawyers were consulted on all this by BB, Pioli and the Krafts prior to issuing the statement on Walsh?

Of course they were. What do you think happened when Pioli discovered that Walsh was taping him? Did he say, "that's wrong. But you're allowed to keep the tapes?"

Or does he have evidence?

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

^And yet you still think Walsh has a case against slander/libel without knowing the contents or the extent of the evidence? I'd wager the Pats brass and their lawyers have a good idea exactly what he has.

 

[upstater1]

^And yet you still think Walsh has a case against slander/libel without knowing the contents or the extent of the evidence? I'd wager the Pats brass and their lawyers have a good idea exactly what he has.

Err, I was making the point that, when your lawyer claims in public that you have been maligned with a "total fabrication," you should sue for slander.

Obviously I'm just an anonymous internet presence and I don't have the scoop on who has what. But to me it's pretty telling that two people in this whole thing have called each other liars. One of them isn't. Most people who read my post understood that I think Walsh is the liar, and that Walsh will not pursue a slander case for obvious reasons.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

In the case of slander, you don't need to prove malice.

Would love to see a case on this, because it's pretty fundamentally inconsistent with what I understand to be true. In fact, some of the 1st Amendment defamation cases were slander cases not libel cases.

You need to prove malice if you're a public figure or the matter was one of public concern -- whether you are alleging libel or slander.

The reason Walsh wouldn't need to prove malice is because he's not a public figure. Not because the defamation was not in writing.

 

[upstater1]

Would love to see a case on this, because it's pretty fundamentally inconsistent with what I understand to be true. In fact, some of the 1st Amendment defamation cases were slander cases not libel cases.

You need to prove malice if you're a public figure or the matter was one of public concern -- whether you are alleging libel or slander.

The reason Walsh wouldn't need to prove malice is because he's not a public figure. Not because the defamation was not in writing.

I was really only talking about Walsh in this case. He does have a tough standard still. Has to prove pecuniary damages, and these have to be related to his occupation.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I was really only talking about Walsh in this case. He does have a tough standard still. Has to prove pecuniary damages, and these have to be related to his occupation.

That's true. Still, if what Pioli said was false, it might be worth bringing the case. I bet he could sell a jury on the fact that he's always wanted to return to the NFL in some capacity, and Pioli's defamation has made it impossible given the fraternity aspects of the profession.

The reality is that I'm sure Pioli was darned sure of himself and vetted it with lawyers before saying what he said, so the real reason Walsh probably won't bring the case is because it probably wasn't false and Walsh and his loudmouth lawyer probably know it full well.

The guy doesn't exactly start with much credibility. The NFL offered him immunity, but he says this is not enough because they also said that they would keep any NFL property that he turned over -- his whole "I need protection" argument is that he should be able to keep the tapes.

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

Err, I was making the point that, when your lawyer claims in public that you have been maligned with a "total fabrication," you should sue for slander.

So what happens if and when Pioli's accusations turn out to be true? Does Pioli then sue Walsh's attorney for slander? This again goes to the heart of my first post here where both sides are given leeway under absolute privilege when the issue has entered the public arena as it had when the lawsuit was filed.

 

[upstater1]

So what happens if and when Pioli's accusations turn out to be true? Does Pioli then sue Walsh's attorney for slander? This again goes to the heart of my first post here where both sides are given leeway under absolute privilege when the issue has entered the public arena as it had when the lawsuit was filed.

No, because in a slander case such as this one, you have to prove that the accuser has caused you pecuniary damage, or that he accused you of a crime, or that he accused you of having a disease.

Calling Pioli a liar is not accusing him of a crime or a disease. Will it result in pecuniary damages? Unless Kraft fires Pioli for this reason, I don't see it. And Kraft wouldn't fire Pioli unless he was caught in a major lie, so there wouldn't be a case there regardless.

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

The reason Walsh wouldn't need to prove malice is because he's not a public figure.

This is actually debatable. A case can be made that Walsh has become a limited public figure due to his own actions.

 

[MassPats38]

The distinction between libel and slander is publication (statement is recorded in permanent form). I think you will find that a statement made publicly (television/Internet/radio) is publication, even though the statement is spoken rather than written.

In short, slander applies to statements made to a person or people, not to a camera or microphone. As such, most statements/facts discussed in the media is probably would raise a libel issue. In the event you enjoy a little drab legal reading, this may be of interest. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm

It is also worth noting that much of what you see out there is arguably opinion and as such is probably bulletproof. If you misstate facts you are on the hook - if you state your opinions on facts (e.g., "from what I've heard they cheated"), probably not.