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

[LJRomanoff]

If you don’t have a job, and can’t get one because of the text, what are you going to do?

The Super Bowl was two months ago, meaning he's only been looking for work for that long at the most. Lots of people lose jobs and take two months or longer to find a replacement. It's absurd to argue that he "can't get one" because of the text. This guy has no case.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

If you don’t have a job, and can’t get one because of the text, what are you going to do? In the end, I don’t think Chung is going to be held responsible.

How about not sue anyone? If you were sued over something that you are 100% NOT responsible for, would you shrug it off and be ok with the aggravation simply because the person suing you is desperate?

 

[LJRomanoff]

How did this guy’s text message wind up on social media to begin with?

It's right there in the article:

"The man reportedly suing Chung, Matthew Hogan, told TMZ Sports the incident started with a text to Matthew Weymouth, a friend from college who also runs Chung's social media pages. After Chung broke his arm during the Patriots-Rams Super Bowl, Hogan texted Weymouth -- jokingly, he claims -- "Patrick Chung is a *****."

According to Hogan, Weymouth responded by posting screenshots of Hogan's texts on Chung's Instagram and Facebook pages and outing Hogan as a Rams employee in one post that included the following caption:

"This is disrespectful of you. I would never wish or say anything like this to anyone after they just broke their arm. You should be ashamed bro."

 

[XLIX]

Your analogy is also a total fail, because there was no defamation.

Here’s a better analogy:

Suppose a reporter for a TV station gives a report on someone who did something epically stupid, like locking themself out of their house except much worse. Factually accurate, with no editorial opinion, just facts speaking for themselves. Is the TV station legally liable for defamation, when there was not any defamation?

You obviously haven't followed the conversation in this thread. I have stated time and again there was no defamation. The debate moved to the hypothetical notion of whether or not Chung is responsible for his employee's behavior on his social media account. That is where I said if there was defamation - which there wasn't but I am speaking hypothetically - then yes Chung would be responsible, and I gave a great analogy of a TV station being responsible for what a reporter says.

Chung will win on the grounds there's no defamation. He will not win on the grounds that he isn't responsible for what an authorized representative post to his Instagram account.

 

[ivanvamp]

To quote the great philosopher George Carlin "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

I never heard that quote but man that's gold.

 

[Bledsoehasaring]

I’m no genius but if you were “forced from your job” after the incident....shouldn’t you be suing the rams? I am not sure how calling anyone a ***** privately is a fireable offense. Are we not allowed to say “****” in our private lives? Seems like his problem is with the Rams, not Chung.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Chung hurt his feelings too.

Punitive damages.

It’s ok to hurt someone’s “feelings”

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The biggest dill hole of this entire story is Chung's friend, even though a lawsuit seems absurd. But it appears to be two friends - or at least acquaintances - having a little trash talking text exchange which was within one context thought to be private. When I'm watching games, my blood pressure is through the roof and I'm pretty much just angry and an ash0le to be around myself...so making a comment like this isn't really the way I'd think about things level headedly. As a fan you have peak adrenaline and stress and having these thoughts are pretty normal, especially if you're a real fan.

So the guy who posted it on social media is a huge b1tch. I do kind of feel bad for the guy who got fired from his job because he got "ratted out" for something rather silly. We watch sports as entertainment and our IQs shrink by about 80 points when we watch the game. Want proof? Look at the Game Day Threads!!!

 

[Patriot Missile]

Misread it. Didnt read the part where they were friends. If he meant it as a joke, that was a douche move by the media guy.

 

[Triumph]

It’s ok to hurt someone’s “feelings”

Not anymore.

Watch your step buddy.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Not anymore.

Watch your step buddy.

I spent a summer in college working on a coal mine in Wyoming. When I got there, there were a lot of roughneck guys. One of them told me “Welcome to Wyoming, where men are men and sheep run scared”

 

[Simpelton]

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.

If there's no defamation, there's no liability. ex-Rams dude has no leg to stand on and I doubt this case even sees a trial date. Spurious lawsuit is spurious, Chung's dude bears no responsibility for someone else electing to abuse the legal process, that isn't something that's a direct consequence of Chung's dude's actions, that's butthurt ex Rams dude's perogative and his responsiblity. Ergo, no foul to Chung's dude, far as I can tell he can't be blamed for any part of what happened.

TLDR: Chung's dude didn't get ex-Rams dude fired, he just chose not to honor a non-existent expectation of privacy and let ex-Ram dude get himself fired. ex-Rams dude is salty and abusing the legal process to lash out, no part of that is Chung's dude's fault.

 

[Simpelton]

Your analogy is also a total fail, because there was no defamation.

Here’s a better analogy:

Suppose a reporter for a TV station gives a report on someone who did something epically stupid, like locking themself out of their house except much worse. Factually accurate, with no editorial opinion, just facts speaking for themselves. Is the TV station legally liable for defamation, when there was not any defamation?

Or even better. Suppose someone says something really stupid to a reporter during an interview, that they assumed was off the record (but no verbal agreement to this effect), and the media reported it, and the dude got fired. That's pure "position of privilege" immunity if the media does it, per NYT v Sullivan, but even without that shield, I doubt the guy has a leg to stand on.

 

[Kontradiction]

I see all the lawyers on this message board have sprung into action on this one. Between this and the Kraft thread, they’ve got their work cut out for them.​

 

[XLIX]

I’m no genius but if you were “forced from your job” after the incident....shouldn’t you be suing the rams? I am not sure how calling anyone a ***** privately is a fireable offense. Are we not allowed to say “****” in our private lives? Seems like his problem is with the Rams, not Chung.

I’d say the Rams are 100% within their rights to fire him. Anything he does is going to reflect on the Rams’ organization, so to make such a statement about a competitor is quite unprofessional.

If he had said it about, say, some actor that might be different.

 

[patchick]

Ergo, no foul to Chung's dude, far as I can tell he can't be blamed for any part of what happened.

"No grounds for a defamation lawsuit" ? "no foul" or "can't be blamed for any part."

Imagine you were an employer in this situation. Who would you fire?

Bob is a ticket executive with a sports team. He has an old buddy Bill who is a social media manager for an athlete. Their employers' teams are meeting in the big game, and they engage in a little trash talk over text during the game. Then Bill takes that private trash talk and uses his professional position to broadcast it to the world with the clear intention of dragging Bob's name through the mud.

As an employer, I think the obvious firing offense is using my public social media platform to settle your private score. That's on-the-job misbehavior, and wildly unprofessional.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

I’d say the Rams are 100% within their rights to fire him. Anything he does is going to reflect on the Rams’ organization, so to make such a statement about a competitor is quite unprofessional.

If he had said it about, say, some actor that might be different.

The guy worked in the ticket office. I have a hard time believing the Rams would have struggled to sell tickets based off of a comment a ticket office employee made about an opponent in the Super Bowl.

The Rams certainly have the right to fire him, but we are reaching absurdity level in what is getting people canned nowadays.

 

[XLIX]

The guy worked in the ticket office. I have a hard time believing the Rams would have struggled to sell tickets based off of a comment a ticket office employee made about an opponent in the Super Bowl.

That’s irrelevant. He said something which easily could embarrass the organization.

When someone does something stupid like this and the media picks it up, what do the headlines say? Do the headlines say “Joe Schmoe calls Patrick Chung a *****”...? No. They says “Rams employee calls Patrick Chung a *****.”

There’s probably even a policy in place about doing such things. If a Patriots ticket rep did something similar, I have no doubt he’d be fired in less than a heartbeat.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

If it's TRUE it isn't defamation
It's for sure true since it's posting exactly what he typed

.

 

[maust]

It’s ok to hurt someone’s “feelings”

I agree. Apparently...