- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,204
- Reaction score
- 11
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.Pat Purcell, your ass is about to be sued to oblivion. Kraft, pelase fire the two inside track "gals"
Matt Walsh has no money, but Tomase's employer, Heralrd has a few bux left. All Patriots, All the Time, the New hearld! LOL
You're not kidding, either. Be ready for Kraft to take a 12-gauge to the Herald.
What the heck are you talking about?
It's becoming more apparent that Walsh ain't got jack. Most are now saying Kraft will sue the Herald into never-never land.
Can I ask what they would sue the herald for? While I deplore Tomase and the like I don't think they libeled anybody, certainly not in a way that could recover damages in court. Writing about "rumors of a taped walkthrough" isn't saying there is a tape out there. It's saying that there are rumors, which was true, even if the rumors were bullshyte, which they were.
If they were going to sue they would have already. If they sue now what is their reason for waiting? Did they want to wait and see if the allegations were true? That doesn't look very good.
I'd be willing to bet anyone here that the Herald will not be sued.
The article didn't say "rumors have it."
The article specifically said "According to a source, a member of the team’s video department filmed the Rams’ final walkthrough before that 2002 game."
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1070762&srvc=home&position=0
Even Kraft called it "a damaging allegation by a newspaper."
Can I ask what they would sue the herald for? While I deplore Tomase and the like I don't think they libeled anybody, certainly not in a way that could recover damages in court. Writing about "rumors of a taped walkthrough" isn't saying there is a tape out there. It's saying that there are rumors, which was true, even if the rumors were bullshyte, which they were.
If they were going to sue they would have already. If they sue now what is their reason for waiting? Did they want to wait and see if the allegations were true? That doesn't look very good.
I'd be willing to bet anyone here that the Herald will not be sued.
But unfortunately, the "according to one source" is a key phrase, as the Herald could claim they were lied to and that wouldn't be libel unfortunately. There's also a fairly large precedent set that allows journalists to protect their sources, so they would never be forced to reveal the source. Not to mention that if they were going to sue them why wouldn't they have already?
IANAL, but I quote Wikipedia here: "Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements:
- The plaintiff must prove that the information was published. Check.
- The plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified. Check.
- The remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation. Check.
- The published information is false. Apparently--Check.
- The defendant is at fault. This is the only remaining question.
Since the Pats are public figures, they would have to show that the Herald published with reckless disregard for the truth--basically, that either the Herald knew the information was cr*p, or that they had reason to believe it was false, and went ahead and printed it anyways.
As for why they haven't sued already--they're probably working on that last point.
Thta' the point though. It's incredibly hard to prove they knew that and the "information" we are talking about isn't that "there was a tape out there" it's that "according to one source there is a tape out there." These are semantical differences that mean a world of difference in a court of law.
But unfortunately, the "according to one source" is a key phrase, as the Herald could claim they were lied to and that wouldn't be libel unfortunately. There's also a fairly large precedent set that allows journalists to protect their sources, so they would never be forced to reveal the source. Not to mention that if they were going to sue them why wouldn't they have already?
Thta' the point though. It's incredibly hard to prove they knew that and the "information" we are talking about isn't that "there was a tape out there" it's that "according to one source there is a tape out there." These are semantical differences that mean a world of difference in a court of law.
According to Tomase in his weekly Loren & Wally chat the week following the article, his editors made him go out and get this story after it was broken in the New York Times. He said he would not publish it until he got the source to verify the allegation. If this goes to court, and I doubt it does, the source would have to be ferreted out. No easy thing.