PFT acknowledges that frenzied Pats rumour mill may be driven by resentment

[Deus Irae]

Of course I understand libel. You are the one who clearly doesn't understand it. Here are the definitions:



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel

Unless you can prove that they make up rumors that they attribute to sources, you clearly fall into category 2.

This is my point. You clearly don't understand libel if you make that claim.

We finally agree on something. You, me, and Mike Florio and the rest of the PFT agree that there isn't a rumor that Harrison affected Samuel deal. The great thing is that none of us including Florio and PFT ever claimed there was a rumor.

Let's try this again........... slowly.......... for those....... such as yourself...... who can't wrap around....... a concept.

He made the claim on his RUMOR MILLS page.....
It's not a rumor...... It's blatant speculation ...... it has no source other than the poster himself.

Just because you can't come to grips with the fact that Florio seems to do a very good job of clarifying what is speculation on his part and what are rumors he has heard, doesn't mean you can libel the guy and accuse him of making up rumors that he attributes to unnamed sources. Florio is a lawyer by trade. I am sure he is pretty careful not to make up rumors and attribute them to others. He knows the legal troubles he can get in for that.

For you as well as the other gentleman.... read posts before commenting on them.

 

[Rob0729]

On the other hand, yeah, that's not libel. Libel would be if he was writing "Florio is a pedophile" or something like that, something harmful and misrepresentative to the person with zero basis for the statement (hopefully Rich Cimini doesn't take that quote and run with it).

So saying that a rumor on a rumor site that is attributed to sources is totally made up by the writer of the site with absolutely no sources isn't "harmful and misrepresentative" to Florio? What if he does have a source that actually provided the rumor? I don't know could be more harmful for a site that is about providing rumors from league sources to be accused of making up their own rumors without any source providing that rumor.

 

[BelichickFan]

For what it's worth, setting aside semantics, I think Florio's speculation about WHY the Patriots suddenly gave in, somewhat, to Samuel's camp is easily the MOST plausible explanation for the change in heart.

Do you guys have a better theory?

No but some of us presented this before King Florio did :

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showpost.php?p=497405&postcount=7

It was a fairly obvious thought.

 

[primetime]

So saying that a rumor on a rumor site that is attributed to sources is totally made up by the writer of the site with absolutely no sources isn't "harmful and misrepresentative" to Florio? What if he does have a source that actually provided the rumor? I don't know could be more harmful for a site that is about providing rumors from league sources to be accused of making up their own rumors without any source providing that rumor.

No, it's legitimate criticism. It may not be legitimate criticism you or I agree with, but it isn't libel; like I said, libel would be someone writing "Florio is a pedophile" with no basis to that. Libeling a website would be tough... you'd have to say something like "PFT is a front for Al-Qaida."

Deus Irae is just going on and on about how the page is called the Rumor Mill. Most PFT readers understand that the Rumor Mill is simply the main page of the site, where all the news, rumors, opinion pieces, etc. are condensed. It's sort of misrepresentative, I suppose, but I don't think most people would get too uptight about it.

 

[52decleetzu]

Posters on here know more than Florio anyways. The only time he's right is when it's a bad thing about a team that isn't the Patriots and when it's a good thing about the Patriots. Forget the fact that his sources are far more numerous and well-informed than anyone on this board anyways.

Riigghht.....the posters here have WAY more "sources" than PFT does.And OF COURSE,Florio is wrong when it is something bad about the Pats,and right when it is something good about the Pats.

All I can do is laugh.Some of you are seriously off the deep end.

 

[Rob0729]

This is my point. You clearly don't understand libel if you make that claim.

I clearly understand libel. You don't. You are accusing Florio of making up rumors that he clearly says there are sources. You are attacking his credibility without a single shread of evidence. If that ain't libel, I don't know what is.

Let's try this again........... slowly.......... for those....... such as yourself...... who can't wrap around....... a concept.

He made the claim on his RUMOR MILLS page.....
It's not a rumor...... It's blatant speculation ...... it has no source other than the poster himself.

And let me say this again slowly... He.... represented.... that.... claim.... as.... pure.... speculation. Why can't you grasp this simple concept? It isn't a rumor, nor was it ever presented by Florio as a rumor. Florio speculates on things all the time, but he does clearly state it is speculation.

Florio has his power rankings linked from the Rumor Mill page. Is his power rankings just rumors then?

For you as well as the other gentleman.... read posts before commenting on them.

Will do. Always have. Maybe you should read Florio pieces before you comment on them. Then you might understand the the difference between speculation and rumors because it seems lost on you.

 

[primetime]

Riigghht.....the posters here have WAY more "sources" than PFT does.And OF COURSE,Florio is wrong when it is something bad about the Pats,and right when it is something good about the Pats.

All I can do is laugh.Some of you are seriously off the deep end.

I guess you missed the sarcasm, and failed to notice how every other post I've made in this thread is defending PFT; the whole point to that post was exactly what you said.

 

[RayClay]

Riigghht.....the posters here have WAY more "sources" than PFT does.And OF COURSE,Florio is wrong when it is something bad about the Pats,and right when it is something good about the Pats.

All I can do is laugh.Some of you are seriously off the deep end.

I have 162 sources online right now, according to the front page, so don't libel me, I'll take you to court.

 

[Rob0729]

No, it's legitimate criticism. It may not be legitimate criticism you or I agree with, but it isn't libel; like I said, libel would be someone writing "Florio is a pedophile" with no basis to that. Libeling a website would be tough... you'd have to say something like "PFT is a front for Al-Qaida."

Deus Irae is just going on and on about how the page is called the Rumor Mill. Most PFT readers understand that the Rumor Mill is simply the main page of the site, where all the news, rumors, opinion pieces, etc. are condensed. It's sort of misrepresentative, I suppose, but I don't think most people would get too uptight about it.

It isn't legitimate criticism. Far from it. Where's the proof? To make it legitimate criticism, you need to have evidence that Florio has made up a story on his own and then attributed them to league sources. There has been no evidence here.

If you accuse someone of making up a story in print when they attribute others without a single shread of evidence, you are libeling them. Florio's site is only successful if people know he actually gets all his information for rumors from people inside the NFL community. If he is believed to just be making up stories, his site (and livelihood through the revenue of the site and media appearances) will be in jeopardy. Therefore, if you accuse him of making up rumors when he is not, you are libeling him.

 

[JackBauer]

I'm sorry, but that's not even close to being libelous.

Unless your standard for such is so low as to render it almost meaningless.

 

[Rob0729]

I have 162 sources online right now, according to the front page, so don't libel me, I'll take you to court.

Well, if you understood the meaning of libel, you would know you have no worries. Apparently, you don't.

 

[Deus Irae]

I clearly understand libel. You don't. You are accusing Florio of making up rumors that he clearly says there are sources. You are attacking his credibility without a single shread of evidence. If that ain't libel, I don't know what is.

You don't know what is. That's abundantly clear.

 

[Rob0729]

I'm sorry, but that's not even close to being libelous.

Unless your standard for such is so low as to render it almost meaningless.

Why not? If he is found by the public to be making up rumors himself, his site is ruined. If someone accuses of him making up rumors without any shread of evidence, that is making false and malicious statements to harm his credibility. That is libel.

 

[JoeSixPat]

The funny thing is, if another GM started the Moss rumor, and the Pats convincingly assured Moss it didn't originate with them, that's the best of both worlds.

It lets Moss know that the Football World is looking for him to revert to the Randy of "old" - that is the selfish "me first" player... and that he needs to show the world he's changed.... the only downside to that rumor, assuming he belives it came from t he front office, is the resentment it might create, though that would do nothing to change the fact that Moss needs to shut up, play hard and deliver

 

[JackBauer]

Why not? If he is found by the public to be making up rumors himself, his site is ruined. If someone accuses of him making up rumors without any shread of evidence, that is making false and malicious statements to harm his credibility. That is libel.

In a very loose sense of the word, perhaps.

Under the law... not a chance.

How, exactly, would the public be able to discern, beyond any doubt, that he's making rumors up out of whole cloth? Don't think it could happen.

 

[Rob0729]

You don't know what is. That's abundantly clear.

Sorta like you don't understand what speculation is which is even clearer.

You are making unsubstiated comments about Florio's integrity on his site. That is libel. It would be slander if you said it publically.

 

[Rob0729]

In a very loose sense of the word, perhaps.

Under the law... not a chance.

Who is talking about the law? The guy is attacking Florio's character without a shread of evidence. That is libeling the guy. I never said that Florio had a case against him in court.

There is a legal definition and a general definition of libel and I am talking about the general definition,

 

[Deus Irae]

Sorta like you don't understand what speculation is which is even clearer.

You are making unsubstiated comments about Florio's integrity on his site. That is libel. It would be slander if you said it publically.

Are you really this slow? I called it speculation:

It's not a rumor...... It's blatant speculation ...... it has no source other than the poster himself.

Now, go find where I made unsubstantiated comments about Florio's integrity. When you can't, I'll expect an apology from you for the defamation.

 

[Rob0729]

Here is the general definition of libel:

anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.

Stating that Florio makes up rumors on his site without proof of it is both defamatory and maliciously and damagingly represents his integrity.

The english lesson is done for today folk.

 

[RayClay]

Well, if you understood the meaning of libel, you would know you have no worries. Apparently, you don't.

"DID HARRISON SUSPENSION CAUSE PATS TO YIELD ON SAMUEL?

We usually pride ourselves on being able to connect the dots when it comes to NFL stories that have no apparent linkage on the surface. We also pride ourselves in being willing to pilfer the ideas of others who have connected the dots in situations where we've yet to do so.

We've "borrowed" the present concept from a cousin who was at a family reunion on Sunday, and who is a Boston native and thus a raging fan of any of the sports teams headquartered there.

The idea is this: Last week, when the Patriots unexpectedly included into cornerback Asante Samuel's one-year, $7.79 million contract provisions allowing him to escape the use of the franchise tag in 2008, did the team make this concession because it knew that safety Rodney Harrison was going to be suspended -- and that Samuel's people soon would know, too?

The answer, we think, is "Hell, yes."

It makes a lot of sense. The Pats, already shorthanded with Samuel holding out, knew that Harrison would miss the first four weeks of the regular season. Samuel, if he had known, would have had the leverage to move the triggers that will exempt him from the use of the franchise tag in 2008 even lower.

"Rodney's situation came up last week," coach Bill Belichick said on Monday.

Once the situation "came up," the team acted quickly (we believe) to get Samuel signed -- before Samuel would realize the problem that the team now faced.

The placement of Richard Seymour on the PUP list for the start of the season, which necessarily makes him unavailable for the first six weeks of it, also might have been a factor in the team's decision to give Samuel a chance to become an unrestricted free agent in 2008. Even though Seymour is a defensive linemen, the fact that he won't be available to put heat on opposing quarterbacks will put more pressure on the secondary, since there likely will be more time for receivers to get open.

So to anyone who thinks that the Pats merely went soft in dealing with Samuel, the truth likely is that the team recognized that it soon would be in a bind, and worked out a fair deal before the definition of "fair" changed."

Made up.

Defenses To Libel

If you’re defending against a defamation claim, you may be able to get out from under the lawsuit by proving:

* The statements you made were true
* What you said isn’t a statement of fact, but one of opinion
* Your statements were privileged (the interest you had in communicating your statement outweighed the defamed person’s interest in protecting their reputation)

http://personal-injury.lawyers.com/Slander-And-Libel.html

I wouldn't mention the word "libel" in front of Mr. Florio as he might be likely to leave the country before you explained you wanted to represent him in a suit against someone else.