RebKell's Junkie Boards

[thesixthwoman]

One of SPM's writers, our Indiana Fever Staff member, just wrote an entry about this in his blog (beating me to it...) should anyone be interested:

http://www.spmsportspage.com/published/spmblogs/square-in-the-middle.shtml

[gopherfan]

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.

_________________
Rah-rah-ah-ah-ah!
Roma-Roma-ma-ah!
Ga-ga-ooh-la-la!
Want your bad romance

http://www.elyricsworld.com/bad_romance_lyrics_lady_gaga.html

[womens_hoops]

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:

[baker10]

[baker10]

I was listening to the radio 97.3 Alice in San Francisco this morning and they were discussing the lawsuit. Than one of the DJ'S say the "NHH" girl!
I mean he actually said the words! A couple of the other DJ"S told him you really should not say that. DUH

[umbeta1455]

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]

[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.

[dtsnms]

[quote="PiperB"][quote="umbeta1455"]I know what he did was wrong, but move on. This has to be only about money. He was punished.

[pilight]

[Queenie]

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]

[tennis2]

[tennis2]

[auntie]

[sbjules]

[womens_hoops]

[womens_hoops]

[thesixthwoman]

[SouthSpawn]

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]

[bluewolfvii]

[womens_hoops]

[womens_hoops]

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]

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.