Can the Patriots...

[363839]

......take legal action to some of the people that keep slandering them?

I sure would love to see that.
Shut some of these dip****s up.

 

[shmessy]

......take legal action to some of the people that keep slandering them?

I sure would love to see that.
Shut some of these dip****s up.

Google: ABSCAM

Then compare it to the relationship Arlen Specter has with Comcast Cable.

 

[signbabybrady]

Slander is a very hard thing to prove as you not only need to prove that what was said was untrue you also need to prove malice or intent to publish false info. Otherwise all the media would owe is a retraction which wouldnt be on the front page like the scandal.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

......take legal action to some of the people that keep slandering them?

I sure would love to see that.
Shut some of these dip****s up.

The short answer is "probably not."

A private citizen (e.g., you or I) has much greater protection against defamation than a "public figure."

Basically, for the Patriots to win, they'd have to show that (A) the Herald knew it was BS, or (B) Tomase had strong reason to believe it was BS, and published it anyway.

 

[Watson's IQ]

......take legal action to some of the people that keep slandering them?

I sure would love to see that.
Shut some of these dip****s up.

Nah, that's nearly an impossible thing to do unless you can prove intent/malice, which I highly doubt.

Trust me when I say that the Patriots have no interest in ever seeing the inside of a court room or congressional hearing room on this.

I'm sure they just want it to go away, so I see no reason they would protract the story themselves.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Slander is a very hard thing to prove as you not only need to prove that what was said was untrue you also need to prove malice or intent to publish false info. Otherwise all the media would owe is a retraction which wouldnt be on the front page like the scandal.

That's true for the Patriots, but it's not generally true for private citizens (in other words, if your neighbor--assuming he's not famous--were accused of being an axe murderer in the local paper, he could sue, even if he couldn't prove malice).

 

[shmessy]

I DO think that some very good questions, at the least, can be asked of Arlen Specter as to why ON THE MORNING OF THE SUPER BOWL he thought it NOT an abuse of power for him to go on national TV and Radio shows to call on Tom Brady to go to Congress to answer questions about Spygate.

Why not Belichick?

Obviously, Specter's intent was to affect the outcome of the game.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

3 things need to be proven:

1) the person committing the slander or libel must have said something untrue

Even this may be hard, because Tomase and others always said they MAY have taped the practice. Saying "MAY" gives them wiggle room to make it not a lie.

2) The person saying it had to KNOW it was untrue. Tomase can't just be a bad reporter, he must be proven to have known otherwise for certain.

3) The person had to distribute the lie with the purpose of harming the Patriots franchise. This is very hard to prove. People normally lie for fame, money, or attention, not to specifically cause harm.

This is why there will be no legal action. It is really hard to prove all three points.

 

[363839]

Google: ABSCAM

Then compare it to the relationship Arlen Specter has with Comcast Cable.

Yeah, I saw you're other posts regarding the Spector/Comcast association.
I agree with you. Which is why I think there may be a case for slander.

 

[363839]

Nah, that's nearly an impossible thing to do unless you can prove intent/malice, which I highly doubt.

There is certainly motive here in many cases.

Trust me when I say that the Patriots have no interest in ever seeing the inside of a court room or congressional hearing room on this.

They would rather be cotinuously harrased by the press?

I'm sure they just want it to go away, so I see no reason they would protract the story themselves.

Now that's a good point but no matter how quiet they are, this **** just won't stop.

 

[363839]

I DO think that some very good questions, at the least, can be asked of Arlen Specter as to why ON THE MORNING OF THE SUPER BOWL he thought it NOT an abuse of power for him to go on national TV and Radio shows to call on Tom Brady to go to Congress to answer questions about Spygate.

Bingo, Shmessy. That one may have been the most egggr....eeeggrr....most blatant.

Why not Belichick?

Obviously, Specter's intent was to affect the outcome of the game.

Yup.

 

[blackglass3]

......take legal action to some of the people that keep slandering them?

I sure would love to see that.
Shut some of these dip****s up.

Actually, if it in print it's libel. Spider Man's boss said so in the first movie.

 

[363839]

Actually, if it in print it's libel. Spider Man's boss said so in the first movie.

Well, he can't be wrong.

 

[signbabybrady]

The short answer is "probably not."

A private citizen (e.g., you or I) has much greater protection against defamation than a "public figure."

Basically, for the Patriots to win, they'd have to show that (A) the Herald knew it was BS, or (B) Tomase had strong reason to believe it was BS, and published it anyway.

Yeah thanks for telling me stuff I knew and didnt think needed to be mentioned as we are dealing with public figures and orginizations.

 

[Marko]

I don't think it would be hard to prove malice at all. The timing of the article and accusation could be proof of malice. Yes, it would be a sensational time to release it but depending on when the Herald and ESPN knew it could be demonstrated that they wanted the greatest effect which could be seen as the harming of the Pats.