View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
thesixthwoman
Joined: 25 Sep 2004 Posts: 6296 Location: NYC
Back to top |
|
gopherfan
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 Posts: 2434 Location: Central Minnesota
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 12:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Yea, I saw that in the StarTribune today I couldn't but to when she said Imus comments has damaged her reputation. Please your 15 min of fame is up just let it go.
Last edited by gopherfan on 08/15/07 5:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 2831
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 12:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
On the "slander per se" issue, New York actually has a specific statute for this. Civil Rights Law sec. 77 says: "In an action of slander of a woman imputing unchastity to her, it is not necessary to allege or prove special damages."
New York courts have recognized three other categories:
Quote: |
The four established exceptions (collectively "slander per se") consist of statements (i) charging plaintiff with a serious crime; (ii) that tend to injure another in his or her trade, business or profession; (iii) that plaintiff has a loathsome disease; or (iv) imputing unchastity to a woman. When statements fall within one of these categories, the law presumes that damages will result, and they need not be alleged or proven. |
Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429 (1992) (citations omitted).
So two things to remember: (1) you might think that her reputation wasn't really damaged, but because she's alleging per se, she doesn't have plead or prove actual monetary damage; (2) the "per se" exceptions only relieve you of the requirement of proving damages -- they don't effect the other elements of the tort.
|
|
baker10
Joined: 21 Jun 2006 Posts: 2560 Location: California
Back to top |
|
baker10
Joined: 21 Jun 2006 Posts: 2560 Location: California
Back to top |
|
umbeta1455
Joined: 18 Apr 2005 Posts: 1897 Location: Maine
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 1:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I know what he did was wrong, but move on. This has to be only about money. He was punished. He messed up he is human...MOVE ON. People say worse things to people every single day.
The incident came and went but of course it is brought back up because somebody is greedy or wants more attention.
She will probably have 10 more lawsuits by the time this is over because a lot of people are going to start seeing what type of person they think she is and going to attack. If she does this she deserves whatever is going to come her way.
|
|
fancy_daniel
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 Posts: 4489 Location: Los Angeles
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 2:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
womens_hoops wrote: |
Seems to me that this sort of cedes the moral high ground (if there were any left), but then again, it's nice to get paid. |
I doubt that it matters. In 10 years Imus will be dead and Vaughn will be on to whatever post-basketball career she'll be into and only a few diehards will remember any of this. |
We'll be those diehards.
|
|
PiperB
Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Posts: 86
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 2:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
[quote="umbeta1455"]I know what he did was wrong, but move on. This has to be only about money. He was punished. [quote]
It is about money. He didn't get punished, he got rewarded with a 20 million dollar settlement. If he got 20 million out of saying what he did, which he did, then those girls deserve some of that 20 million, IMO.
|
|
dtsnms
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 18815
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 2:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
[quote="PiperB"][quote="umbeta1455"]I know what he did was wrong, but move on. This has to be only about money. He was punished.
Quote: |
It is about money. He didn't get punished, he got rewarded with a 20 million dollar settlement. If he got 20 million out of saying what he did, which he did, then those girls deserve some of that 20 million, IMO. |
He was fired against his contract. That's why he got money. What does that have to do with him getting 20 million for what he said?
That's apples and oranges!
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67121 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 4:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
womens_hoops wrote: |
Incidentally, on the public figure issue, I just did a little research... professional athletes and coaches are, almost categorically, considered public figures. College athletes are a little bit more gray, courts seem to do more of a case-by-case analysis. On one hand, wcbb is the third most popular college sport, and Rutgers is an elite and famous team, and Kia Vaughn is a fairly well known player. On the other hand, if you had surveyed the general public 6 months ago, probably 0.01% would have recognized the name "Kia Vaughn." |
From a non-lawyer standpoint, since the only reason Imus mentioned the team at all was because of a nationally broadcast game seen by millions of people it seems reasonable to view them as public figures in this instance.
_________________ I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18064 Location: Queens
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 5:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I got the impression that Kia took it more personally than the rest of the team because of the reference to tattoos, actually. So if any of the RU players were going to do something this... ill-advised, shall we say... I'm not surprised it's her. (Ajavon would be the other one who didn't surprise me; I remember her oh-so-hypocritical protestations of eternal emotional scarring at the time.)
_________________ Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
bluewolfvii
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 5007 Location: The Happening
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 5:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
harlem_basketball wrote: |
http://spilledtea.com/spilledteablog/?p=431
Quote: |
The infamous streets have implied that this may not have been so much Kia’s decision as the grown folk around her.
Again, while I have no problem with her doing what SHE feels is right, I can only hope she’s not a money making puppet in the eyes of some still salty yet influential adults. |
|
Nice of spilledtea.com to make an allowance for Kia doing what she feels is right. She's a ways to go, after all, before she's in the same league as a money making puppet like Imus.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LegalCenter/story?id=3135895&page=1
|
|
tennis2
Joined: 10 May 2006 Posts: 2378
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 5:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Keegan wrote: |
Quote: |
Don Imus referred to my client as an unchaste woman. That was and is a lie. |
Hmm what's going to be the onus of proof for this one? |
I THINK without looking it up that the onus of proof is on Imus. If it had been another type of slander........but, if this falls under defamation per se, then I don't think damages have to be proven and the onus of proof is on Imus.
I am wondering if Imus should make a settlement offer to the entire team to stop protacted litigation and anymore lawsuits. Then again, Imus is now in the news and I hadn't heard anything about him until this and his settlement with nbc, abc ...whoever.....was settled. Any publicity is good publicity????????
|
|
tennis2
Joined: 10 May 2006 Posts: 2378
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 5:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
womens_hoops wrote: |
Incidentally, on the public figure issue, I just did a little research... professional athletes and coaches are, almost categorically, considered public figures. College athletes are a little bit more gray, courts seem to do more of a case-by-case analysis. On one hand, wcbb is the third most popular college sport, and Rutgers is an elite and famous team, and Kia Vaughn is a fairly well known player. On the other hand, if you had surveyed the general public 6 months ago, probably 0.01% would have recognized the name "Kia Vaughn." |
From a non-lawyer standpoint, since the only reason Imus mentioned the team at all was because of a nationally broadcast game seen by millions of people it seems reasonable to view them as public figures in this instance. |
Really, not to be argumentative, but I don't see playing basketball on national tv as making you a public figure by law or otherwise........I don't think Courtney Paris is a public figure and she is more well-known than Kia Vaughn.
|
|
auntie
Joined: 16 May 2006 Posts: 1774 Location: Brooklyn, NY
Back to top |
|
sbjules
Joined: 22 Dec 2004 Posts: 3476
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 6:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
fancy_daniel wrote: |
pilight wrote: |
womens_hoops wrote: |
Seems to me that this sort of cedes the moral high ground (if there were any left), but then again, it's nice to get paid. |
I doubt that it matters. In 10 years Imus will be dead and Vaughn will be on to whatever post-basketball career she'll be into and only a few diehards will remember any of this. |
We'll be those diehards. |
Yeah, I'll be one of those diehards too.
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 2831
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 8:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
tennis2 wrote: |
Really, not to be argumentative, but I don't see playing basketball on national tv as making you a public figure by law or otherwise........I don't think Courtney Paris is a public figure and she is more well-known than Kia Vaughn. |
definitely a reasonable point, but the law has defined the term "public figure" more broadly than a lot of us probably would using ordinary language. Sometimes, under the law, totally random or unknown people are considered "public figures" at least for the purpose of limited activities. And at least some courts have held that college athletes are public figures.
So I don't know... I think it could go either way.
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 2831
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 8:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
tennis2 wrote: |
Keegan wrote: |
Quote: |
Don Imus referred to my client as an unchaste woman. That was and is a lie. |
Hmm what's going to be the onus of proof for this one? |
I THINK without looking it up that the onus of proof is on Imus. |
the burden of proof is different for different elements.
(1) The burden of proving that the statement was a factual statement is on the plaintiff.
(2) If Kia is not a public figure, then Imus may raise truth as a defense ("she really is a ho"), in which case the burden is on him. If Kia is a public figure, then she must prove falsity as part of her case-in-chief, so the burden is on her.
(3) Normally, the plaintiff has to prove damages. But because it's defamation per se, so the law presumes damages, so that basically switches the burden to him. Although the law presumes the existence of damages, it does not presume any amount of damages. Imus would have the chance to rebut the presumption of damages -- he could try to prove that she really wasn't damaged, in which case the jury could find him guilty, but only award nominal damages (like $1).
|
|
thesixthwoman
Joined: 25 Sep 2004 Posts: 6296 Location: NYC
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 9:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
womens_hoops wrote: |
Imus would have the chance to rebut the presumption of damages -- he could try to prove that she really wasn't damaged, in which case the jury could find him guilty, but only award nominal damages (like $1). |
I can hear the punch lines now... a $1 ho ...
I saw her lawyer on TV today - I couldn't hear the sound but it seemed they were saying that they ARE in this for the money so that Kia can establish some kind of scholarship fund that will address racist and sexist language and how it can damage young people...something along those lines.
I don't know. Just start a foundation and use your "fame" from this incident to raise money and ASK Imus to make an appropriate donation. Don't sue the guy. That would have been a classier move and he would have had a pretty hard time saying no to anything reasonable because then you publicize what a cheap s.o.b. he is.
|
|
SouthSpawn
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 Posts: 38
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 10:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Ok, I am a black guy, and what he said was over the top.
BUT, this is probably one of the dumbest things that someone could do.
In this country, people think that we should just sue and point of the racist people in this country, and maybe it will "scare them straight".
This tactic will only make the situation worse, and will cause to push those bigots to hide their feelings because they are scared to say how they fell.
I would rather let a racist person get what they say off of their chest, and then work with them and show through action that they are wrong about their views.
Racist people can only die out through the proper education, because they were misinformed in the first place.
Sueing them, and pointing the finger at them does nothing, but pushes the problem underground.
Kia V is just looking to make some money IMO.
|
|
gopherfan
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 Posts: 2434 Location: Central Minnesota
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 10:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
auntie wrote: |
gopherfan wrote: |
Yea, I saw that in the StarTribune today I couldn't but to when she said Imus comments has damaged her reputation. Please your 15 min of fame is up just let it go. |
If anything her response to the incident had improved her reputation. This lawsuit might diminish the benefit that she had gained. It looks like it is all about the bucks. |
Sad but true, if TV time isn't enough hell why not sue. It's funny that Imus is the only one being sued when he wasn't the first to start the comments. I would hope (if) in this situation that none of my girls would never take this to an immature level like Kia has brought it to. Korrine just be glad you decided not to walk into this mess.
auntie wrote: |
Maybe now she should sue herself. |
LOL.
Last edited by gopherfan on 08/15/07 10:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
bluewolfvii
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 5007 Location: The Happening
Back to top |
Posted: 08/15/07 10:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
gopherfan wrote: |
Sad but true, if TV time isn't enough hell why not sue. It's funny that Imus is the only one being sued when he wasn't the first to start the comments. |
From the article:
Quote: |
The suit names Imus individually, but it is also waged against MSNBC, NBC Universal, CBS Radio, CBS Corp., Viacom Inc., Westwood One Radio and Imus producer Bernard McGuirk. |
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 2831
Back to top |
Posted: 08/16/07 6:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
thesixthwoman wrote: |
I saw her lawyer on TV today - I couldn't hear the sound but it seemed they were saying that they ARE in this for the money so that Kia can establish some kind of scholarship fund that will address racist and sexist language and how it can damage young people...something along those lines. |
I think she wants her own money, and she says she'll use some of it to start a scholarship.
"She's looking to be fairly and justly compensated by this case," Ancowitz said first, then added, "and to establish some sort of a scholarship fund that we're working on to study the pernicious effects of this type of bigoted, misogynistic speech on society."
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 2831
Back to top |
Posted: 08/16/07 7:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Just for fun, here are the New York jury instructions setting forth the elements of defamation. (Note that these are the instructions for a public figure.) This just sets forth what the elements are -- there are lots more instructions defining the elements in more detail.
This is an action to recover damages for slander. Spoken words are slanderous if they tend to expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or disgrace and if they have caused that person actual financial loss. The plaintiff claims that on [date] at [place] in the presence of AB, CD and EF, defendant said [set forth alleged slander, such as—“You are a child abuser”].
To recover damages for slander, plaintiff has the burden of proving five (six) elements. If the plaintiff has proved all five (six) of these elements, you will decide in plaintiff's favor and go on to determine the amount of damages. However, if plaintiff failed to prove any one of those five (six) elements, plaintiff may not recover.
First, plaintiff must prove by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that the statement was defamatory, meaning that the statement had a tendency to expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or disgrace.
Second, plaintiff must prove by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that the statement referred to the plaintiff, meaning that the statement would be reasonably understood to be about the plaintiff.
Third, plaintiff must prove by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that defendant published or broadcast the statement, meaning that the defendant communicated the statement to someone other than the plaintiff.
Fourth, plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statement was false, meaning substantially untrue.
Fifth, plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that when defendant made the statement, defendant knew that it was false or acted in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement.
[In cases involving plain slander [i.e., not slander per se], add the following sixth element]
Sixth, plaintiff must prove by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that the statement was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff to suffer financial loss.
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 2831
Back to top |
Posted: 08/16/07 7:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
On slander per se and damages... a lot has been made of the fact that this is slander per se, but that actually doesn't matter much in practice.
The jury proceeds in two steps: first, it decides whether the defendant is guilty; second, it sets a damage amount. In plain slander, the plaintiff has to prove damages in the first step (the 6th element above). In slander per se, she doesn't.
But in the second step, as a practical matter, she still has to prove damages. If she wants to recover some appreciable amount, rather than just a nominal sum, she must give the jury some proof of what her damages were. In other words, while the law presumes damages, it doesn't presume any particular amount.
Here is the jury instruction for damages in slander per se cases in New York:
I am now going to instruct you on the law of damages. The fact that I instruct you on the law of damages must not be taken as an indication that you should decide for the plaintiff. You will decide on the evidence presented and the rules of law that I have given you whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant.
If you decide that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, you will award an amount as, in the exercise of your good judgment and common sense, you decide is fair and just compensation for the injury to plaintiff's reputation and the humiliation and mental anguish in (his, her) public and private life which you decide was caused by defendant's statement. In fixing that amount you should consider the plaintiff's standing in the community, the nature of defendant's statement made about the plaintiff, the extent to which the statement was circulated, the tendency of the statement to injure a person such as the plaintiff, and all of the other facts and circumstances in the case. These damages cannot be proved with mathematical accuracy. Fair compensation may vary, ranging from one dollar, if you decide that there was no injury, to a substantial sum if you decide that the injury was substantial.
|
|
|
|