| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66921
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
ladydawgs96
Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 734
Location: Georgia
Back to top |
 Posted: 08/14/07 8:15 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
Can practices get here any quicker? It seems like the news outlets have run out of stuff now that Barry has his HR record*. We're back to recycling Pokeygate and Imusgate. Let's move on people!
I wish that Kia would have just moved on too! Is she hoping to just settle out of court? How is this going to effect her on the court? Can she really focus on school and basketball while going through this suit?
|
|
luvDhoops
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 8229
Back to top |
|
gpark33
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 5116
Back to top |
|
ripleydc
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 4778
Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
|
thesixthwoman
Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 6296
Location: NYC
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/14/07 11:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
okay, Imus was an idiot, but is there really a legitimate argument that anyone in his or her right mind thought he literally meant that Kia and/or any of the other Scarlet Knights were "unchaste women?" That she was 'defamed' because IMUS called her a "ho?" I mean, they're making an argument for slander here and to me that implies that it would have to be believable on some level. That there was a specific intent to mislead. This was about entertainment. Misguided, immature, racist, sexist, low-brow crap, but entertainment. This was not about defaming anyone.
I didn't start wondering if the Scarlet Knights were really skanky girls who slept around because Imus used the word "ho's" to insult them. Did you?
Kia has every right to do this, I guess (I'm no attorney), but I'm sure her lawyer is a pure opportunist and I'm afraid unless this is over and done with pretty quick (like she gets some kind of settlement right away) then she will create a bigger backlash against herself and the team (and maybe even women's basketball) -- and she will just appear to be too much of an opportunist herself.
I am curious where the rest of the team stands on this -- I would love to know: Is she out on her own, here? Did others not want to be part of this? Or are they planning their own civil suits? Or is it because she's not going to be a senior with concerns about a professional career quite yet that she has time for this, whereas players like Matee and Essence would not want to take the chance that this could drag out through the Spring and affect their futures? What does CVS think?
|
|
Keegan
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 6861
Location: The Cathedral of Snark
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/14/07 11:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| 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? |
|
braveniler58
Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 10537
Location: Arizona
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/14/07 11:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Don't get me wrong, I think what Don Imus did was wrong, but...
Freedom of speech anyone? ?_?
|
|
Stephen Shirley
Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 787
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/15/07 2:56 am ::: Exactly |
Reply |
|
| thesixthwoman wrote: |
| Kia has every right to do this, I guess (I'm no attorney), but I'm sure her lawyer is a pure opportunist and I'm afraid unless this is over and done with pretty quick (like she gets some kind of settlement right away) then she will create a bigger backlash against herself and the team (and maybe even women's basketball) -- and she will just appear to be too much of an opportunist herself. |
If anyone is interested in how public opinion has shifted, just read some of the comments on the ABC board. Imus was universally vilified in April for his comments. Now the criticism is turned on Vaughn and the rest of the Rutgers players. And the venom is especially poisonous on that forum.
IMHO, this was a bad, bad move. This lawsuit turns the honest-to-goodness innocent victims into the evil, money-grubbing, lawsuit-happy opportunist.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/15/07 9:55 am ::: Re: Exactly |
Reply |
|
I'm not happy about this at all. She and the team won this one already; there's no need to fight it all over again.
That said, it's not a free speech issue. I'm not free to say that, oh, pilight is, say, an arsonist without putting myself at risk for a libel suit unless I can prove that he is an arsonist. (For the record, I'm not saying he is one.) There are questions about whether this actually is libelous, but none of them have to do with the First Amendment.
My guess is that the lawyer involved is planning on a quick settlement. For one thing, I Googled him and he looks like he's on his own or at most has a couple of other lawyers working for him. Imus and CBS, on the other hand, will have serious legal talent on their side, and he's unlikely to have the resources to match them.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/15/07 10:12 am ::: Re: Exactly |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
That said, it's not a free speech issue. I'm not free to say that, oh, pilight is, say, an arsonist without putting myself at risk for a libel suit unless I can prove that he is an arsonist. (For the record, I'm not saying he is one.) There are questions about whether this actually is libelous, but none of them have to do with the First Amendment.
|
Is that true? I know when I worked in journalism, the rule of thumb we were taught when dealing with libel that the onus of proof was on the plaintiff - BIG TIME. There had to be a demonstration not only that the statement was knowingly false or at least that the defendant had no reason to believe it was true AND that the plaintiff had suffered damages because of it.
Under that, if Imus were to claim that he looked at Vaughn and legitimately thought that she were "an unchaste woman" then he is pretty much covered.
|
|
bballjunkee212
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 1906
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/15/07 10:39 am ::: |
Reply |
|
It's called "slander per se." Certain statements are considered slanderous without further proof, among which are to impute unchastity to a woman. So by saying that Vaughn (by virtue of her status as a RU player) was a "ho'", Imus slandered her, and Vaughn will not be required to prove that the statement was harmful.
I don't think it will be as easy as that-- there may be other issues, such as truth as a defense, or Vaughn's status as a "public figure," but this is a case that will likely settle. IMHO, Vaughn had a right to file her lawsuit, and was perfectly justified in doing so. Imus could have brought notoriety to RU and wcbb in any number of ways, and he chose the lowest and dirtiest.
_________________
~Bill
|
|
gpark33
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 5116
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/15/07 10:46 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Does anyone else recall an interview with Kia when this was in its prime and race was the main issue? I vaguely remember her saying something to the effect of the nappy headed part was not nearly as hurtful as the ho part. Just something that semi-stuck with me.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/15/07 10:46 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| bballjunkee212 wrote: |
It's called "slander per se." Certain statements are considered slanderous without further proof, among which are to impute unchastity to a woman. So by saying that Vaughn (by virtue of her status as a RU player) was a "ho'", Imus slandered her, and Vaughn will not be required to prove that the statement was harmful.
I don't think it will be as easy as that-- there may be other issues, such as truth as a defense, or Vaughn's status as a "public figure," but this is a case that will likely settle. IMHO, Vaughn had a right to file her lawsuit, and was perfectly justified in doing so. Imus could have brought notoriety to RU and wcbb in any number of ways, and he chose the lowest and dirtiest. |
I don't remember ... was the comment that they looked like hos or were hos?
Also, BBJ, is it considered slanderous to impute unchastity onto a man as well, or just a woman?
|
|
harlem_basketball
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 2666
Location: Gee I don't know...Harlem maybe?
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/15/07 10:56 am ::: |
Reply |
|
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. |
|
|
bballjunkee212
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 1906
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/15/07 11:01 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
| bballjunkee212 wrote: |
It's called "slander per se." Certain statements are considered slanderous without further proof, among which are to impute unchastity to a woman. So by saying that Vaughn (by virtue of her status as a RU player) was a "ho'", Imus slandered her, and Vaughn will not be required to prove that the statement was harmful.
I don't think it will be as easy as that-- there may be other issues, such as truth as a defense, or Vaughn's status as a "public figure," but this is a case that will likely settle. IMHO, Vaughn had a right to file her lawsuit, and was perfectly justified in doing so. Imus could have brought notoriety to RU and wcbb in any number of ways, and he chose the lowest and dirtiest. |
I don't remember ... was the comment that they looked like hos or were hos?
Also, BBJ, is it considered slanderous to impute unchastity onto a man as well, or just a woman? |
If it was "looked like", then the statement would appear to have been a non-actionable opinion-- "were" would be an actionable assertion of fact. I can't imagine any experienced attorney risking his license on something that obvious, so I'm going with "were".
The category of slander per se grew up in the old days, and applies only to women, although in some places and times, it has applied only to unmarried women. So go ahead and call Barak and Hilary all the names you want. 
_________________
~Bill
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66921
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/15/07 11:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
| I don't remember ... was the comment that they looked like hos or were hos? |
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704040011
| Quote: |
IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --
McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. |
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/15/07 11:30 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Here's a link to the original report on Media Matters for America. Imus did not use "look like" or any other qualifier.
Bad Imus
Edited to add: I see pilight beat me to it.
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/15/07 11:37 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| That said, it's not a free speech issue. I'm not free to say that, oh, pilight is, say, an arsonist without putting myself at risk for a libel suit . . . There are questions about whether this actually is libelous, but none of them have to do with the First Amendment. |
I don't think that's quite right. If she qualifies as a "public figure," then the additional First Amendment-derived protections come in. The public figure doctrine is a First Amendment overlay on the traditional tort doctrine. Were this litigated, I imagine that her status as a public figure would be disputed, so some of the issues here are First Amendment issues.
And so the pilight analogy doesn't quite hold, since he isn't a public figure. If you defame pilight, the First Amendment isn't involved at all. But if you defame a public figure, it is.
Based on my (admittedly limited) understanding, she would be a public figure.
| bballjunkee212 wrote: |
If it was "looked like", then the statement would appear to have been a non-actionable opinion-- "were" would be an actionable assertion of fact. I can't imagine any experienced attorney risking his license on something that obvious, so I'm going with "were".
|
I don't think it's quite that simple. Statements of fact are actionable and statements of opinion (and "mere insults") are not. But looking at the syntax alone doesn't answer the question. Some factual statements are disguised as opinion, and vice versa.
If I say "you're an asshole" or "you're a bitch," I've made statements that are, as a matter of syntax, factual statements. But they aren't literal -- I'm not actually asserting that you are literally a hole-in-a-butt or a female dog. And everyone with a working understanding of American English would recognize that. Put differently, even though they look like factual statements, everyone knows that they are statements of opinion.
BeK and I debated this point ad nauseam in March. I still believe what I believed then -- that no competent English speaker would think that Imus was making a factual statement. No one thought he was asserting that the team members were prostitutes. What he said was racist and insulting and offensive, but not factual, so not defamatory.
So this lawsuit strikes me as unsound, borderline frivolous, a lame money grab. But whatever. Imus is getting his own huge settlement now, and he's incredibly rich, so maybe he'll pay her $50k to make it go away and call it good. 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.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66921
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66921
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/15/07 11:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| 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.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/15/07 11:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Well, now she has some more people to sue.
| pilight wrote: |
| 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. |
you should re-read the March threads. People were saying that this was a watershed moment in the history of race relations in America. People were comparing the Rutgers women to Rosa Parks. Maybe they were right. Maybe in 10 years everyone taking junior high civics will learn about Imus and Kia Vaughn.
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."
So I think it could go either way.
But I don't think it matters much. If you interpret the statement as factual, then of course it was stated with actual malice or reckless disregard. If you don't interpret the statement as factual, then the suit fails even if she isn't a public figure.
Last edited by womens_hoops on 08/15/07 11:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
BCBG25
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 20112
Location: Sampa
Back to top |
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/15/07 12:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
This case was filed in New York state court, so New York law will apply.
Here is the leading New York case defining what counts as factual assertion and what doesn't:
| Quote: |
The dispositive inquiry, under either Federal or New York law, is "whether a reasonable [reader] could have concluded that [the articles were] conveying facts about the plaintiff." Since falsity is a necessary element of a defamation cause of action and only "facts" are capable of being proven false, "it follows that only statements alleging facts can properly be the subject of a defamation action" . In our State the inquiry, which must be made by the court , entails an examination of the challenged statements with a view toward (1) whether the specific language in issue has a precise meaning which is readily understood; (2) whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false; and (3) whether either the full context of the communication in which the statement appears or the broader social context and surrounding circumstances are such as to " 'signal … readers or listeners that what is being read or heard is likely to be opinion, not fact' " .
...
In Silsdorf v Levine we merely held that an accusation of criminality that, read in context, is set forth as a fact is not transformed into a nonactionable expression of opinion merely because it is couched "in the form of [an] opinion." To illustrate, if the statement "John is a thief" is actionable when considered in its applicable context, the statement "I believe John is a thief" would be equally actionable when placed in precisely the same context. By the same token, however, the assertion that "John is a thief" could well be treated as an expression of opinion or rhetorical hyperbole where it is accompanied by other statements, such as "John stole my heart," that, taken in context, convey to the reasonable reader that something other than an objective fact is being asserted. Indeed, it has already been held that assertions that a person is guilty of "blackmail," "fraud," "bribery" and "corruption" could, in certain contexts, be understood as mere, nonactionable "rhetorical hyperbole" or "vigorous epithet[s]" .
Similarly, even when uttered or published in a more serious tone, accusations of criminality could be regarded as mere hypothesis and therefore not actionable if the facts on which they are based are fully and accurately set forth and it is clear to the reasonable reader or listener that the accusation is merely a personal surmise built upon those facts. In all cases, whether the challenged remark concerns criminality or some other defamatory category, the courts are obliged to consider the communication as a whole, as well as its immediate and broader social contexts, to determine whether the reasonable listener or reader is likely to understand the remark as an assertion of provable fact. |
Gross v. New York Times, 82 N.Y.2d 146, 153-55 (1993) (citations omitted).
So in short, it doesn't really matter much whether he said "were" or "in my opinion" or whatever.
What matters is whether a reasonable reader would understand it as an assertion of provable fact, in which case it's defamatory, or rhetorical hyperbole or vigorous epithet, in which case it isn't defamatory.
In my opinion, what Imus said was clearly the latter category. But perhaps a jury of New Yorkers would disagree.
Last edited by womens_hoops on 08/15/07 12:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
thesixthwoman
Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 6296
Location: NYC
Back to top |
|
|
|
just wow.
