OT: Chung basher gets what he deserves, sues over it

[patman52]

Liability? I don’t care.
Still, I hope Chung fired his social media guy for his lack of awareness and poor decision making that placed his employer in the line of fire. At a minimum, Chung will face legal costs in order to extract himself from his employee’s actions.

Employee? and is a judge going to allow it to go forward? It sounds to me that the person/company who was hired would bear the responsibility for what was done. I would think his liabilty insurance would cover this.

 

[DaBruinz]

Dude shouldn't have been fired over it. People on this board have said far worse about many NFL players, myself included. I disagree with anyone on here who says he got what was coming.

That said, the lawsuit has no merit, although it could very well cost Chung legal fees.

Yes, he should have been fired over it. When it was sent, his employer was the St. Louis Rams. If you think they don't have a code of conduct on how they are supposed to handle Social Media you are seriously fooling yourself. Clearly the Rams felt that his comments breached the expectations they have of their employees. I would not be surprised to find out that he attempted to sue the Rams but was told that he doesn't have a case.

Have you not been paying attention to the world we live in. Plenty of people have been fired for saying egregious things on Social media. I could probably pull up a dozen or so in the last year alone.

The idea that it will cost Chung legal fees is laughable. The judge will rule against the guy and say he owes Chung the legal fees.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

HUH??? Chung's guy did nothing wrong. The guy who messaged Chung is the asshat and claims of defamation are laughable.

His posting of a private text message to a friend (who happened to work for the Rams) led to his dismissal from his job. The guy was a moron, sure, but Chung’s guy is also an idiot for getting his boss in hot water. It’s called agency law - an employer could be held responsible for the acts of employees while they are on the job. For example, if a company’s delivery truck driver accidentally kills someone with his vehicle while making deliveries, the company could be held liable. If Chung’s guy is an independent contractor or free lance (more likely), then maybe Chung should be in good shape legally.

 

[BradyFTW!]

On one hand, I've sent hundreds of messages to friends that, if they got attached to me publicly I would probably lose my job and never be able to work again. OTOH, I'd like to think I know my audience. All of those messages have been sent to close friends who I'm pretty sure got and appreciated the joke. And if not, I'm fairly certain they're the kinds of friends who wouldn't go nuclear and decide to end my career by making private stuff public.

And for that I almost feel bad for the guy; it's clear that he overestimated the type of friendship he had with the recipient of the message, and I think it's pretty bogus that his 'friend' made their private messages public. Yeah it was not funny and in poor taste and all that, but... eh. I dunno, I just really don't think it was a proportionate reaction to a stupid, private message. Much better response would have been to hit him back with a message pointing out that he's way, way too much of a ***** to either a) survive an NFL game himself, or b) call Chung a ***** to his face. Basically just call out the fake-machismo ******** privately and leave it at that.

So I dunno, I have mixed feelings and I'll just form my opinion based on the quality of the 'joke' itself. Which is that I don't even really understand how it's a joke - it's not even in bad taste, it's that it's literally not a joke. So **** that guy for being dumb and not funny. If you're going for 'controversial' humor you'd better at least try to be funny.

 

[XLIX]

So the guy is friends with Chung’s social media director and texted him and then Chung’s social media guy posts the text on facebook? I don’t like what he said, but it was a private text and the guy had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I admit I am just spitballing here, but I've given quite a bit of thought to what you have just said and my ridiculously-uninformed opinion is thus:

This is a civil matter, not a criminal one. I don't think "reasonable expectation of privacy" applies to a conversation with a friend - but please let me clarify: If you have a conversation with a friend, you have the reasonable expectation of privacy in that the government will not eavesdrop on that conversation. You do not have any sort of reasonable expectation (legally speaking) that your friend won't turn around and tell other people what you told him.

If what has been reported here is correct, Chung's social media guy may be a tattle tale, but he wasn't lying so there's no basis for any part of this lawsuit.

If my friends posted something I texted to them on social media, I’d have a problem with it too.

You may have a problem with it - and I wouldn't blame you - but that doesn't mean they are legally liable for the consequences.

 

[DaBruinz]

Seriously. You people are as bad as the guy suing Chung. This idea that Weymouth did anything wrong by posting the text is ridiculous. It shows that you have an absolute warped idea of who did wrong and it shows why our country is so screwed up today.

There have been plenty of people fired for posting things on Facebook, Instagram, etc that were morally reprehensible or just borderline stupid. Teachers, Politicians, Police Officers, etc. And so many of you have supported those firings / resignations. Yet, now that a Patriot player is involved even tangentially, you are blasting the guy who outed the douchebag?? SERIOUSLY? SMH..

Honestly. That's the equivalent of saying that the guy who found the child porn and reported it to the police should be the one thrown in jail. Not the guy who owned it.

 

[XLIX]

That's actually incorrect, he should have used "median".

It is generally assumed that the intelligence of the U.S. population is normally distributed. As such, mean = median, so there's no problem using average as he did.

 

[DaBruinz]

The difference is that no one here has connection to any organizations. That to me is what got him fired. He was a representative of the Rams, and he’s a little guy. Doesn’t have 6 million in guarantees.

He wasn't a "little guy". He was a Rams Ticket Executive. If it was a ticket booth guy, I doubt this is even a story.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

I admit I am just spitballing here, but I've given quite a bit of thought to what you have just said and my ridiculously-uninformed opinion is thus:

This is a civil matter, not a criminal one. I don't think "reasonable expectation of privacy" applies to a conversation with a friend - but please let me clarify: If you have a conversation with a friend, you have the reasonable expectation of privacy in that the government will not eavesdrop on that conversation. You do not have any sort of reasonable expectation (legally speaking) that your friend won't turn around and tell other people what you told him.

If what has been reported here is correct, Chung's social media guy may be a tattle tale, but he wasn't lying so there's no basis for any part of this lawsuit.
You may have a problem with it - and I wouldn't blame you - but that doesn't mean they are legally liable for the consequences.

I don’t think defamation is at play here (and if it is, it should be dismissed by a judge). This is more of a case of employer liability for the act of a subordinate.

 

[fnordcircle]

Dude shouldn't have been fired over it. People on this board have said far worse about many NFL players, myself included. I disagree with anyone on here who says he got what was coming.

That said, the lawsuit has no merit, although it could very well cost Chung legal fees.

He didn't got what he had coming and he should have been fired for it.

This is free speech and the free market at work.

He said something silly probably as trash talk. No big deal to me. Someone else did something stupid with what he said. It looked bad and made his employer look bad so his employer fired him. I don't blame his employer why would any employer want to keep on an employee who had made them look bad unless that employee was absolutely crucial?

Anyone here who has ever worked in a leadership role would do the same. Companies don't exist to be warriors for consequence free speech, they exist to make money. You can say people shouldn't have been outraged and I'd agree, but I don't blame his employer at all.

 

[DaBruinz]

I would agree morally for not holding Chung accountable, but legally he might have a case. And since the guy doesn’t have a job...

Tell that to all the teachers, politicians, police officers, doctors, etc who have posted things or sent texts and have been fired over them. There have been thousands of people who have lost jobs over the past few years because of this sort of thing.

Reality is that the Rams are the ones who fired him. Clearly they believed that he misrepresented them.

Defamation is any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation. If Weymouth posted Hogan's text to Chung's account verbatim, then how does that equate to "intentional false communication that harms a person's reputation"?

It doesn't matter that the texts weren't sent to Chung. The fact is that they were sent someone in the employ of Chung. Pretty sure that, legally, it's the same thing.

 

[DaBruinz]

I don’t think defamation is at play here (and if it is, it should be dismissed by a judge). This is more of a case of employer liability for the act of a subordinate.

The lawsuit is for defamation, not employer liability.

Matthew Hogan was fired by the Rams. Any lawsuit should be against them for wrongful termination. But as I said, I'd bet money that Hogan violated some Employee Rules that the Rams have.

 

[XLIX]

Seriously. You people are as bad as the guy suing Chung. This idea that Weymouth did anything wrong by posting the text is ridiculous. It shows that you have an absolute warped idea of who did wrong and it shows why our country is so screwed up today.

There have been plenty of people fired for posting things on Facebook, Instagram, etc that were morally reprehensible or just borderline stupid. Teachers, Politicians, Police Officers, etc. And so many of you have supported those firings / resignations. Yet, now that a Patriot player is involved even tangentially, you are blasting the guy who outed the douchebag?? SERIOUSLY? SMH..

I actually agree with those arguing that Chung is responsible for his social media director's behavior in this regard. These posts were made to Chung's Instagram account by someone authorized to make posts in Chung's name. If it was truly defamatory, then Chung would be held liable.

The thing is, the social media guy didn't do anything for which he should be held legally liable. He didn't lie about anything. The basis of the lawsuit is the ridiculously weak accusation that he "created a false impression" regarding what was said.

Honestly. That's the equivalent of saying that the guy who found the child porn and reported it to the police should be the one thrown in jail. Not the guy who owned it.

Not even remotely an applicable analogy.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Seriously. You people are as bad as the guy suing Chung. This idea that Weymouth did anything wrong by posting the text is ridiculous. It shows that you have an absolute warped idea of who did wrong and it shows why our country is so screwed up today.

There have been plenty of people fired for posting things on Facebook, Instagram, etc that were morally reprehensible or just borderline stupid. Teachers, Politicians, Police Officers, etc. And so many of you have supported those firings / resignations. Yet, now that a Patriot player is involved even tangentially, you are blasting the guy who outed the douchebag?? SERIOUSLY? SMH..

Honestly. That's the equivalent of saying that the guy who found the child porn and reported it to the police should be the one thrown in jail. Not the guy who owned it.

You are confusing moral and legal. No one is morally attacking Chung’s social media guy for what he did. Legally it might be a different story.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

The lawsuit is for defamation, not employer liability.

Matthew Hogan was fired by the Rams. Any lawsuit should be against them for wrongful termination. But as I said, I'd bet money that Hogan violated some Employee Rules that the Rams have.

The guy can always change the complaint to add employer liability as a cause of action and he can also add the Rams as a defendant. It’s not a big deal.

 

[XLIX]

I don’t think defamation is at play here (and if it is, it should be dismissed by a judge). This is more of a case of employer liability for the act of a subordinate.

Well, to be clear, the lawsuit is for defamation. And despite what @DaBruinz thinks, Chung would quite likely be legally responsible for something posted on Chung's own personal Instagram account by an authorized representative.

However, I do not consider the posts themselves defamatory. The guy reposted screenshots of the text messages. I don't see anything in there that creates any sort of false impression (as the plaintiff is arguing).

 

[DaBruinz]

His posting of a private text message to a friend (who happened to work for the Rams) led to his dismissal from his job. The guy was a moron, sure, but Chung’s guy is also an idiot for getting his boss in hot water. It’s called agency law - an employer could be held responsible for the acts of employees while they are on the job. For example, if a company’s delivery truck driver accidentally kills someone with his vehicle while making deliveries, the company could be held liable. If Chung’s guy is an independent contractor or free lance (more likely), then maybe Chung should be in good shape legally.

You're getting some things confused.

Matthew Hogan was a "Ticket Executive" for the Rams. He initiated the exchange by sending the message to Matthew Weymouth (an Employee of Chung's). Weymouth posted the message from Hogan that was about CHUNG. Weymouth then posted a response that 99.9% of us have done to douchebags who have cheered over a player's injury.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to say that your synopsis of "Agency Law" is lacking as your scenario has nothing to do with anything here. We're not talking about an employee killing someone while driving a company vehicle. We're talking about someone (Hogan) being fired because of something he texted. Sharing said text doesn't put the liability on Weymouth. The liability is still on Hogan. He is liable for his own actions.

The idea that Weymouth's actions put Chung in hot water would be the equivalent of saying that the Nightly News Editor should be arrested because his Cameraman handed over the film of a robbery to the cops...

 

[DaBruinz]

You are confusing moral and legal. No one is morally attacking Chung’s social media guy for what he did. Legally it might be a different story.

No. I'm not confusing anything.

And yes, plenty of you have said that Weymouth was stupid/dump/etc for posting the text from the Rams Ticket Executive, Hogan.

 

[DaBruinz]

The guy can always change the complaint to add employer liability as a cause of action and he can also add the Rams as a defendant. It’s not a big deal.

Yep. That's what ambulance chasers do. Fact is that the guy is a douchebag and legally, only he is to blame.

 

[XLIX]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to say that your synopsis of "Agency Law" is lacking as your scenario has nothing to do with anything here. We're not talking about an employee killing someone while driving a company vehicle. We're talking about someone (Hogan) being fired because of something he texted. Sharing said text doesn't put the liability on Weymouth. The liability is still on Hogan. He is liable for his own actions.

@TommyBrady12 is absolutely right when he talks about Agency Law. This social media guy was a representative of Chung, authorized to post on Chung's own personal Instagram account. That is the textbook definition of someone working as an agent on another's behalf.

Chung would most likely be responsible if that guy posted something defamatory to Chung's Instagram account. The thing is here, IMHO, there was nothing defamatory.

The idea that Weymouth's actions put Chung in hot water would be the equivalent of saying that the Nightly News Editor should be arrested because his Cameraman handed over the film of a robbery to the cops...

Once again your analogy is epic fail. Here's a better analogy:

Suppose a reporter for a TV station gives a report which defames an innocent citizen. Is the TV station legally liable? You're damn right they are.