| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1466
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/09/16 5:14 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| GEF34 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| In journalism, you only report facts. So unless you know for sure the player is pregnant, you then report it. You can't just publish a piece saying she's pregnant without substantial evidence backing your claim. If the said player isn't actually pregnant, she can pursue some type of legal action for defamation and slander. Which is why in cases like these, you hold out publishing names, until you know for sure the allegations are correct. |
Actually that's likely not correct. It may violate journalistic ethics (to the extent such a concept even exists in this age of the internet) but as a legal matter the First Amendment protects the media and thus a public figure claiming defamation must prove that the defamatory statements were made with actual malice. That the statements were untrue, or unsupported or negligent is not enough.
You might want to go read about New York Time v. Sullivan and its progeny.
Certainly Summitt, and probably the girl, are both public figures in this context.
And even in the unlikely situation that she could establish a claim for defamation, I'm still waiting to hear what the theory is for her having suffered damages for having it reported she is pregnant over and above those for it being reported that she had the affair.
I'm dying to hear that theory and measure. |
Again, you only report facts. It doesn't matter if you're a public feature or not. Some of the most well known celebrities have sued tabloids for publishing false information and fabricating truths. And a lot of times, the celebrities either won the case or the two parties came to a settlement. Attaching someone's name to false information, public figure or not, is liable to some sort of consequence. I will say, if you're a big figure it would be harder than your average Joe, but it's happened before.
I also wouldn't consider the player a public figure. She's still just a college student that happens to play basketball.
Also, Summitt admitted to an inappropriate relationship, the pregnancy is just rampant rumor and speculation. Media outlets then started reporting she's pregnant. We don't know that. If the player were to sue, how is the author of the piece going to prove the credibility of the source if they swore to the source not to reveal their identity? Often, the judge will not allow you to use some anonymous source as defense, because quite frankly the judge wouldn't know if the source actually exists. For all we know, the "sources" could just be random college kids trying to get a few bucks off the story.
Unless the player herself (or someone she gave approval to) came forward and said she's pregnant, then don't report. If it turns out not true, whichever outlets started saying she's pregnant better have some reliable sources and evidence to back their claims. |
Doesn't the person suing have to prove the person reporting knowingly reported false information, if the person reporting the information believes it to be true, even if it's not I don't think the person can sue without proving it was knowingly false when it was reported. |
Well if you're unsure of your source credibility, it's probably best to not report it. However, if you choose to report it, which I wouldn't, you use "alleged" "reported" "thought". You don't say the girl is 100% pregnant if you don't know for sure. That's just proper journalism.
It's just like a crime case. You don't report "man murders mother of two" until it has been convicted that way. Until there's a legal decision, you report "man allegedly kills mother of two". |
It may be bad journalism, but it doesn't make it a crime that a person can be sued for and found guilty of. Well technically a person can sue for it because a person can sue for anything, but it doesn't mean they will win in a court of law. |
If she can prove that the pregnancy stories have caused some sort of stress or harm to her, whether it be physically, verbally, or financially she can.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7848
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 5:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| summertime blues wrote: |
You know, this is all playing out in a rather interesting manner, with some very interesting undertones. One begins to wonder if Ms. Santos isn't the one stirring the pot here.......and if there may be more than a little jealousy involved. Not that this excuses Tyler, but is it possible that she could have started the more vicious rumors? They came together from Marquette as friends, she may have thought she would get equal attention and/or equal playing time, she didn't, she got jealous...it's entirely possible she might have been the inciter of dissension on the team.....stranger things have happened. She certainly has gone out of her way to dissociate herself from her former friend.
Just a thought. |
I remember reading an older article about the pair transferring. Pumroy said it was actually Santos' idea to move. Pumroy said she was comfortable at Marquette until Santos brought up the transfer idea. Interesting thought. |
Verrrrrry interesting.......as Arte Johnson's German soldier character used to say.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
NFL1
Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Posts: 144
Location: Ithaca, NY
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 5:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Did he get into the habit while a grad assistant at TN? As a student then, maybe he thought it was allowed...and part of coaching?
So sorry that he has sullied his mother's name and reputation. Seems like he's in the Josh Duggar camp.
So, what's next for LATech?
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 5:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| In journalism, you only report facts. So unless you know for sure the player is pregnant, you then report it. You can't just publish a piece saying she's pregnant without substantial evidence backing your claim. If the said player isn't actually pregnant, she can pursue some type of legal action for defamation and slander. Which is why in cases like these, you hold out publishing names, until you know for sure the allegations are correct. |
Actually that's likely not correct. It may violate journalistic ethics (to the extent such a concept even exists in this age of the internet) but as a legal matter the First Amendment protects the media and thus a public figure claiming defamation must prove that the defamatory statements were made with actual malice. That the statements were untrue, or unsupported or negligent is not enough.
You might want to go read about New York Time v. Sullivan and its progeny.
Certainly Summitt, and probably the girl, are both public figures in this context.
And even in the unlikely situation that she could establish a claim for defamation, I'm still waiting to hear what the theory is for her having suffered damages for having it reported she is pregnant over and above those for it being reported that she had the affair.
I'm dying to hear that theory and measure. |
Again, you only report facts. It doesn't matter if you're a public feature or not. Some of the most well known celebrities have sued tabloids for publishing false information and fabricating truths. And a lot of times, the celebrities either won the case or the two parties came to a settlement. Attaching someone's name to false information, public figure or not, is liable to some sort of consequence. I will say, if you're a big figure it would be harder than your average Joe, but it's happened before.
I also wouldn't consider the player a public figure. She's still just a college student that happens to play basketball.
Also, Summitt admitted to an inappropriate relationship, the pregnancy is just rampant rumor and speculation. Media outlets then started reporting she's pregnant. We don't know that. If the player were to sue, how is the author of the piece going to prove the credibility of the source if they swore to the source not to reveal their identity? Often, the judge will not allow you to use some anonymous source as defense, because quite frankly the judge wouldn't know if the source actually exists. For all we know, the "sources" could just be random college kids trying to get a few bucks off the story.
Unless the player herself (or someone she gave approval to) came forward and said she's pregnant, then don't report. If it turns out not true, whichever outlets started saying she's pregnant better have some reliable sources and evidence to back their claims. |
Doesn't the person suing have to prove the person reporting knowingly reported false information, if the person reporting the information believes it to be true, even if it's not I don't think the person can sue without proving it was knowingly false when it was reported. |
Well if you're unsure of your source credibility, it's probably best to not report it. However, if you choose to report it, which I wouldn't, you use "alleged" "reported" "thought". You don't say the girl is 100% pregnant if you don't know for sure. That's just proper journalism.
It's just like a crime case. You don't report "man murders mother of two" until it has been convicted that way. Until there's a legal decision, you report "man allegedly kills mother of two". |
It may be bad journalism, but it doesn't make it a crime that a person can be sued for and found guilty of. Well technically a person can sue for it because a person can sue for anything, but it doesn't mean they will win in a court of law. |
If she can prove that the pregnancy stories have caused some sort of stress or harm to her, whether it be physically, verbally, or financially she can. |
She can, but she would have to prove the writer reported information he or she knew was false, not just that it caused her any type of harm and/or stress to win.
|
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1466
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 5:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GEF34 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| In journalism, you only report facts. So unless you know for sure the player is pregnant, you then report it. You can't just publish a piece saying she's pregnant without substantial evidence backing your claim. If the said player isn't actually pregnant, she can pursue some type of legal action for defamation and slander. Which is why in cases like these, you hold out publishing names, until you know for sure the allegations are correct. |
Actually that's likely not correct. It may violate journalistic ethics (to the extent such a concept even exists in this age of the internet) but as a legal matter the First Amendment protects the media and thus a public figure claiming defamation must prove that the defamatory statements were made with actual malice. That the statements were untrue, or unsupported or negligent is not enough.
You might want to go read about New York Time v. Sullivan and its progeny.
Certainly Summitt, and probably the girl, are both public figures in this context.
And even in the unlikely situation that she could establish a claim for defamation, I'm still waiting to hear what the theory is for her having suffered damages for having it reported she is pregnant over and above those for it being reported that she had the affair.
I'm dying to hear that theory and measure. |
Again, you only report facts. It doesn't matter if you're a public feature or not. Some of the most well known celebrities have sued tabloids for publishing false information and fabricating truths. And a lot of times, the celebrities either won the case or the two parties came to a settlement. Attaching someone's name to false information, public figure or not, is liable to some sort of consequence. I will say, if you're a big figure it would be harder than your average Joe, but it's happened before.
I also wouldn't consider the player a public figure. She's still just a college student that happens to play basketball.
Also, Summitt admitted to an inappropriate relationship, the pregnancy is just rampant rumor and speculation. Media outlets then started reporting she's pregnant. We don't know that. If the player were to sue, how is the author of the piece going to prove the credibility of the source if they swore to the source not to reveal their identity? Often, the judge will not allow you to use some anonymous source as defense, because quite frankly the judge wouldn't know if the source actually exists. For all we know, the "sources" could just be random college kids trying to get a few bucks off the story.
Unless the player herself (or someone she gave approval to) came forward and said she's pregnant, then don't report. If it turns out not true, whichever outlets started saying she's pregnant better have some reliable sources and evidence to back their claims. |
Doesn't the person suing have to prove the person reporting knowingly reported false information, if the person reporting the information believes it to be true, even if it's not I don't think the person can sue without proving it was knowingly false when it was reported. |
Well if you're unsure of your source credibility, it's probably best to not report it. However, if you choose to report it, which I wouldn't, you use "alleged" "reported" "thought". You don't say the girl is 100% pregnant if you don't know for sure. That's just proper journalism.
It's just like a crime case. You don't report "man murders mother of two" until it has been convicted that way. Until there's a legal decision, you report "man allegedly kills mother of two". |
It may be bad journalism, but it doesn't make it a crime that a person can be sued for and found guilty of. Well technically a person can sue for it because a person can sue for anything, but it doesn't mean they will win in a court of law. |
If she can prove that the pregnancy stories have caused some sort of stress or harm to her, whether it be physically, verbally, or financially she can. |
She can, but she would have to prove the writer reported information he or she knew was false, not just that it caused her any type of harm and/or stress to win. |
http://libelandslander.uslegal.com/frequently-asked-questions/
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 5:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| In journalism, you only report facts. So unless you know for sure the player is pregnant, you then report it. You can't just publish a piece saying she's pregnant without substantial evidence backing your claim. If the said player isn't actually pregnant, she can pursue some type of legal action for defamation and slander. Which is why in cases like these, you hold out publishing names, until you know for sure the allegations are correct. |
Actually that's likely not correct. It may violate journalistic ethics (to the extent such a concept even exists in this age of the internet) but as a legal matter the First Amendment protects the media and thus a public figure claiming defamation must prove that the defamatory statements were made with actual malice. That the statements were untrue, or unsupported or negligent is not enough.
You might want to go read about New York Time v. Sullivan and its progeny.
Certainly Summitt, and probably the girl, are both public figures in this context.
And even in the unlikely situation that she could establish a claim for defamation, I'm still waiting to hear what the theory is for her having suffered damages for having it reported she is pregnant over and above those for it being reported that she had the affair.
I'm dying to hear that theory and measure. |
Again, you only report facts. It doesn't matter if you're a public feature or not. Some of the most well known celebrities have sued tabloids for publishing false information and fabricating truths. And a lot of times, the celebrities either won the case or the two parties came to a settlement. Attaching someone's name to false information, public figure or not, is liable to some sort of consequence. I will say, if you're a big figure it would be harder than your average Joe, but it's happened before.
I also wouldn't consider the player a public figure. She's still just a college student that happens to play basketball.
Also, Summitt admitted to an inappropriate relationship, the pregnancy is just rampant rumor and speculation. Media outlets then started reporting she's pregnant. We don't know that. If the player were to sue, how is the author of the piece going to prove the credibility of the source if they swore to the source not to reveal their identity? Often, the judge will not allow you to use some anonymous source as defense, because quite frankly the judge wouldn't know if the source actually exists. For all we know, the "sources" could just be random college kids trying to get a few bucks off the story.
Unless the player herself (or someone she gave approval to) came forward and said she's pregnant, then don't report. If it turns out not true, whichever outlets started saying she's pregnant better have some reliable sources and evidence to back their claims. |
Doesn't the person suing have to prove the person reporting knowingly reported false information, if the person reporting the information believes it to be true, even if it's not I don't think the person can sue without proving it was knowingly false when it was reported. |
Well if you're unsure of your source credibility, it's probably best to not report it. However, if you choose to report it, which I wouldn't, you use "alleged" "reported" "thought". You don't say the girl is 100% pregnant if you don't know for sure. That's just proper journalism.
It's just like a crime case. You don't report "man murders mother of two" until it has been convicted that way. Until there's a legal decision, you report "man allegedly kills mother of two". |
It may be bad journalism, but it doesn't make it a crime that a person can be sued for and found guilty of. Well technically a person can sue for it because a person can sue for anything, but it doesn't mean they will win in a court of law. |
If she can prove that the pregnancy stories have caused some sort of stress or harm to her, whether it be physically, verbally, or financially she can. |
She can, but she would have to prove the writer reported information he or she knew was false, not just that it caused her any type of harm and/or stress to win. |
http://libelandslander.uslegal.com/frequently-asked-questions/ |
Ok, I read through all of that and it says exactly what I said so I don't see the point of showing me information I have already stated.
|
|
NoDakSt
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 5:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| NFL1 wrote: |
Did he get into the habit while a grad assistant at TN? As a student then, maybe he thought it was allowed...and part of coaching?
So sorry that he has sullied his mother's name and reputation. Seems like he's in the Josh Duggar camp.
So, what's next for LATech? |
I feel they need to grant releases to the kids that want them. Let them get on with making arrangements for next year. It sounds as if some were already planning on leaving due to perceptions of favoritism and there's likely a lack of trust among some of the kids and the coaching staff. That's step one.
Then obviously a search needs to happen.
|
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1466
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 5:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GEF34 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| In journalism, you only report facts. So unless you know for sure the player is pregnant, you then report it. You can't just publish a piece saying she's pregnant without substantial evidence backing your claim. If the said player isn't actually pregnant, she can pursue some type of legal action for defamation and slander. Which is why in cases like these, you hold out publishing names, until you know for sure the allegations are correct. |
Actually that's likely not correct. It may violate journalistic ethics (to the extent such a concept even exists in this age of the internet) but as a legal matter the First Amendment protects the media and thus a public figure claiming defamation must prove that the defamatory statements were made with actual malice. That the statements were untrue, or unsupported or negligent is not enough.
You might want to go read about New York Time v. Sullivan and its progeny.
Certainly Summitt, and probably the girl, are both public figures in this context.
And even in the unlikely situation that she could establish a claim for defamation, I'm still waiting to hear what the theory is for her having suffered damages for having it reported she is pregnant over and above those for it being reported that she had the affair.
I'm dying to hear that theory and measure. |
Again, you only report facts. It doesn't matter if you're a public feature or not. Some of the most well known celebrities have sued tabloids for publishing false information and fabricating truths. And a lot of times, the celebrities either won the case or the two parties came to a settlement. Attaching someone's name to false information, public figure or not, is liable to some sort of consequence. I will say, if you're a big figure it would be harder than your average Joe, but it's happened before.
I also wouldn't consider the player a public figure. She's still just a college student that happens to play basketball.
Also, Summitt admitted to an inappropriate relationship, the pregnancy is just rampant rumor and speculation. Media outlets then started reporting she's pregnant. We don't know that. If the player were to sue, how is the author of the piece going to prove the credibility of the source if they swore to the source not to reveal their identity? Often, the judge will not allow you to use some anonymous source as defense, because quite frankly the judge wouldn't know if the source actually exists. For all we know, the "sources" could just be random college kids trying to get a few bucks off the story.
Unless the player herself (or someone she gave approval to) came forward and said she's pregnant, then don't report. If it turns out not true, whichever outlets started saying she's pregnant better have some reliable sources and evidence to back their claims. |
Doesn't the person suing have to prove the person reporting knowingly reported false information, if the person reporting the information believes it to be true, even if it's not I don't think the person can sue without proving it was knowingly false when it was reported. |
Well if you're unsure of your source credibility, it's probably best to not report it. However, if you choose to report it, which I wouldn't, you use "alleged" "reported" "thought". You don't say the girl is 100% pregnant if you don't know for sure. That's just proper journalism.
It's just like a crime case. You don't report "man murders mother of two" until it has been convicted that way. Until there's a legal decision, you report "man allegedly kills mother of two". |
It may be bad journalism, but it doesn't make it a crime that a person can be sued for and found guilty of. Well technically a person can sue for it because a person can sue for anything, but it doesn't mean they will win in a court of law. |
If she can prove that the pregnancy stories have caused some sort of stress or harm to her, whether it be physically, verbally, or financially she can. |
She can, but she would have to prove the writer reported information he or she knew was false, not just that it caused her any type of harm and/or stress to win. |
http://libelandslander.uslegal.com/frequently-asked-questions/ |
Ok, I read through all of that and it says exactly what I said so I don't see the point of showing me information I have already stated. |
Actually no, the player in question wouldn't have to prove the writer didn't know. The write would have to prove the story wasn't put out to be malicious. If the player decided to sue, then every website that's saying she's pregnant will be pressured to reveal their sources. And the "sources" very well may not exist or as stated before could be jealous players going around saying she's pregnant. Which is why the stories of her being pregnant shouldn't have even been published.
Name one good reason for publishing a story, where you're attaching a young lady to a scandalous pregnancy, but you don't know for sure if she is actually pregnant.....
Actually, I've seen some websites claim she's pregnant, and they are only basing this off of what's being said on Twitter. In that case, the writer has no idea what's going on if they are just reading random tweets about the situation.
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 5:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
Actually no, the player in question wouldn't have to prove the writer didn't know. The write would have to prove the story wasn't put out to be malicious. If the player decided to sue, then every website that's saying she's pregnant will be pressured to reveal their sources. And the "sources" very well may not exist or as stated before could be jealous players going around saying she's pregnant. Which is why the stories of her being pregnant shouldn't have even been published.
Name one good reason for publishing a story, where you're attaching a ying lady to a scandalous pregnancy, but you don't know for sure if she is actually pregnant..... |
Actually the player would, here is part of the website you linked.
| Quote: |
Can libel suits be brought by a public figure?
Public figures have a more difficult time proving defamation. Politicians or celebrities are understood to take some risk in being before the public eye and many of them profit by their public persona. A celebrity must prove that the party defaming them knew the statements were false, made them with actual malice, or was negligent in saying or writing them. Proving these elements can be an uphill battle. However, an outrageously inaccurate statement that’s harmful to one’s career can be grounds for a successful defamation suit, even if the subject is famous. For example, some celebrities have won suits against tabloids for false statements regarding their ability to work, such as an inaccurate statement that the star had a drinking problem. |
And here is another part that is related, that we haven't come to yet, not that I think this part will happen even if it is proven to be false, but this is another element to the law.
| Quote: |
Are news reporters and their statements protected against libel and/or slander claims?
The media enjoys a qualified privilege for stories that turn out to be false as long as the information was released without malice (i.e., without intent to harm) and a retraction or correction is made when the matter is brought to the attention of the publishing party. |
|
|
gpark33
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 5116
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 6:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I wonder if these parents think they are helping by getting involved in this They just sound petty, particularly the Santos folks. This is so much bigger than a player getting the green light and more play time. If my daughter were on that team, I'd be doing nothing but asking for permission for her to GTF out of there and keep my mouth shut to the press. Nothing good can come for their daughters from them giving interviews.
_________________
The teacher and the student.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8228
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 6:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
There is a concept in tort law called "defamation per se", which varies in its availability and elements from state to state. In states that retain the tort of defamation per se, certain statements about a person are deemed inherently defamatory, by law, without having to prove damages. Statements that are defamatory per se often include such things as allegations of sexual immorality, unchaste behavior and, for a woman, a false accusation of pregnancy.
The tort can be found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 570 (2013), and Louisiana apparently is one of the remaining defamation per se jurisdictions. |
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1466
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 6:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GEF34 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
Actually no, the player in question wouldn't have to prove the writer didn't know. The write would have to prove the story wasn't put out to be malicious. If the player decided to sue, then every website that's saying she's pregnant will be pressured to reveal their sources. And the "sources" very well may not exist or as stated before could be jealous players going around saying she's pregnant. Which is why the stories of her being pregnant shouldn't have even been published.
Name one good reason for publishing a story, where you're attaching a ying lady to a scandalous pregnancy, but you don't know for sure if she is actually pregnant..... |
Actually the player would, here is part of the website you linked.
| Quote: |
Can libel suits be brought by a public figure?
Public figures have a more difficult time proving defamation. Politicians or celebrities are understood to take some risk in being before the public eye and many of them profit by their public persona. A celebrity must prove that the party defaming them knew the statements were false, made them with actual malice, or was negligent in saying or writing them. Proving these elements can be an uphill battle. However, an outrageously inaccurate statement that’s harmful to one’s career can be grounds for a successful defamation suit, even if the subject is famous. For example, some celebrities have won suits against tabloids for false statements regarding their ability to work, such as an inaccurate statement that the star had a drinking problem. |
And here is another part that is related, that we haven't come to yet, not that I think this part will happen even if it is proven to be false, but this is another element to the law.
| Quote: |
Are news reporters and their statements protected against libel and/or slander claims?
The media enjoys a qualified privilege for stories that turn out to be false as long as the information was released without malice (i.e., without intent to harm) and a retraction or correction is made when the matter is brought to the attention of the publishing party. |
|
So we are considering her to be a public figure? In general, college athletes are usually considered limited public figures, which is a difference. And I think those are sometimes handled differently.
Another case I remember reading and studying is of coach Wally Butts. It happened long ago, but he was considered a public figure but not to the point of having to prove actual malice.
Last edited by TotalCardinalMove on 04/09/16 6:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
NoDakSt
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 6:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| gpark33 wrote: |
I wonder if these parents think they are helping by getting involved in this They just sound petty, particularly the Santos folks. This is so much bigger than a player getting the green light and more play time. If my daughter were on that team, I'd be doing nothing but asking for permission for her to GTF out of there and keep my mouth shut to the press. Nothing good can come for their daughters from them giving interviews. |
Some players have already asked for permission to leave and LaTech has refused saying just wait, see who the new Coach is. Going to the press is a great way to force the administrations hand. The poker's hot right now. In a week, this is old news.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 8:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
There is a concept in tort law called "defamation per se", which varies in its availability and elements from state to state. In states that retain the tort of defamation per se, certain statements about a person are deemed inherently defamatory, by law, without having to prove damages. Statements that are defamatory per se often include such things as allegations of sexual immorality, unchaste behavior and, for a woman, a false accusation of pregnancy.
The tort can be found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 570 (2013), and Louisiana apparently is one of the remaining defamation per se jurisdictions. |
Enjoy your $1 recovery. Don't spend it in one place.
Besides, the "immoral" and "unchaste" behavior are true so obviously not actionable.
|
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3516
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 9:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
All of the stories mentioning pregnancy that I've bothered to trace back lead to the SwishAppeal article, which only cites unnamed sources. I hope for everyone's sake that those sources are reliable.
I think some of the speculation regarding the Santos family is uncalled for. How can it be "petty" and starting "vicious rumors" to complain to asst coaches about a blatantly inappropriate situation such as this one?
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7848
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 9:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| FrozenLVFan wrote: |
All of the stories mentioning pregnancy that I've bothered to trace back lead to the SwishAppeal article, which only cites unnamed sources. I hope for everyone's sake that those sources are reliable.
I think some of the speculation regarding the Santos family is uncalled for. How can it be "petty" and starting "vicious rumors" to complain to asst coaches about a blatantly inappropriate situation such as this one? |
Back up a minute there, pal. IF TotalCardinalMove's memory is correct and it was Santos who talked Pumroy into transferring in the first place, don't you think there might be just a little bit more to this story? Might my theory of jealousy not just hold a little water? I think there may be a lot more to this than first meets the eye....
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8228
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 10:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
There is a concept in tort law called "defamation per se", which varies in its availability and elements from state to state. In states that retain the tort of defamation per se, certain statements about a person are deemed inherently defamatory, by law, without having to prove damages. Statements that are defamatory per se often include such things as allegations of sexual immorality, unchaste behavior and, for a woman, a false accusation of pregnancy.
The tort can be found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 570 (2013), and Louisiana apparently is one of the remaining defamation per se jurisdictions. |
Enjoy your $1 recovery. Don't spend it in one place.
Besides, the "immoral" and "unchaste" behavior are true so obviously not actionable. |
As I've stated, Summitt is likely a "public figure" and has admitted to an inappropriate relationship. I don't think the primary defamation or false light litigation risk lies with him.
I do think there is a defamation risk per se or even per quod if a named woman is stated to have engaged in adultery and has become pregnant, assuming that allegation is not true. Punitive and court sanctioned damages are available in per se cases in addition to actual damages. That's why mainstream outlets who have lawyers, like ESPN, have stayed away from reporting that allegation, especially specific to a named woman. Swish Appeal, in my opinion, has exposure unless its sourced information can be proven true, although they have mitigated their risk by not naming the woman. |
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1466
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 10:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
| FrozenLVFan wrote: |
All of the stories mentioning pregnancy that I've bothered to trace back lead to the SwishAppeal article, which only cites unnamed sources. I hope for everyone's sake that those sources are reliable.
I think some of the speculation regarding the Santos family is uncalled for. How can it be "petty" and starting "vicious rumors" to complain to asst coaches about a blatantly inappropriate situation such as this one? |
Back up a minute there, pal. IF TotalCardinalMove's memory is correct and it was Santos who talked Pumroy into transferring in the first place, don't you think there might be just a little bit more to this story? Might my theory of jealousy not just hold a little water? I think there may be a lot more to this than first meets the eye.... |
Here's the article I was talking about.
http://m.latechsports.com/m/sports/w-baskbl/spec-rel/080515aac.html
Here's a piece of it.
However, it was Santos who surprised Pumroy one day with what came out of her mouth.
As news that Summitt was interviewing for head coaching jobs began to spread, it led to an interesting conversation between the two friends.
"I was talking to Ashley in class one day and she was saying `(Coach Tyler) is going to be really successful,'" said Pumroy. "`He's going to win. What if we went with him?'
"I was comfortable (at Marquette). I had already made my home and got my starting spot. But I got to thinking more about it. I knew God was telling me to do it. I still had no idea where we were going. Coach Tyler wouldn't talk to us because he is so big about following the rules. We just knew he wasn't at Marquette, and we wanted to go with him. We asked for a release before we knew where we were going or if (Coach Tyler) would even offer us a spot."
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 11:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
There is a concept in tort law called "defamation per se", which varies in its availability and elements from state to state. In states that retain the tort of defamation per se, certain statements about a person are deemed inherently defamatory, by law, without having to prove damages. Statements that are defamatory per se often include such things as allegations of sexual immorality, unchaste behavior and, for a woman, a false accusation of pregnancy.
The tort can be found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 570 (2013), and Louisiana apparently is one of the remaining defamation per se jurisdictions. |
Enjoy your $1 recovery. Don't spend it in one place.
Besides, the "immoral" and "unchaste" behavior are true so obviously not actionable. |
As I've stated, Summitt is likely a "public figure" and has admitted to an inappropriate relationship. I don't think the primary defamation or false light litigation risk lies with him.
I do think there is a defamation risk per se or even per quod if a named woman is stated to have engaged in adultery and has become pregnant, assuming that allegation is not true. Punitive and court sanctioned damages are available in per se cases in addition to actual damages. That's why mainstream outlets who have lawyers, like ESPN, have stayed away from reporting that allegation, especially specific to a named woman. Swish Appeal, in my opinion, has exposure unless its sourced information can be proven true, although they have mitigated their risk by not naming the woman. |
If ALL the allegations involving the woman are false, she probably has a claim. In view of the information that has become public and statements from people surrounding the situation, that likelihood appears remote at best.
If the basic allegation of the affair is true, and the only issue is whether she's pregnant or not, then by voluntarily engaging in conduct that has resulted in a national public scandal at a major state university and the resignation of the head coach, she has almost certainly become a limited public figures with respect to publications concerning the particular scandal, and would have to prove actual malice, plus she likely has no incremental damages beyond those resulting from her own voluntary conduct in having an affair.
Mainstream media doesn't identify the names of young women in these situations because it's the PC thing to do and to avoid criticism, not because they're afraid of losing a lawsuit. They could have it on videotape and they still wouldn't want to be the first major outlet to release her name.
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3516
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 11:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| summertime blues wrote: |
| FrozenLVFan wrote: |
All of the stories mentioning pregnancy that I've bothered to trace back lead to the SwishAppeal article, which only cites unnamed sources. I hope for everyone's sake that those sources are reliable.
I think some of the speculation regarding the Santos family is uncalled for. How can it be "petty" and starting "vicious rumors" to complain to asst coaches about a blatantly inappropriate situation such as this one? |
Back up a minute there, pal. IF TotalCardinalMove's memory is correct and it was Santos who talked Pumroy into transferring in the first place, don't you think there might be just a little bit more to this story? Might my theory of jealousy not just hold a little water? I think there may be a lot more to this than first meets the eye.... |
Here's the article I was talking about.
http://m.latechsports.com/m/sports/w-baskbl/spec-rel/080515aac.html
Here's a piece of it.
However, it was Santos who surprised Pumroy one day with what came out of her mouth.
As news that Summitt was interviewing for head coaching jobs began to spread, it led to an interesting conversation between the two friends.
"I was talking to Ashley in class one day and she was saying `(Coach Tyler) is going to be really successful,'" said Pumroy. "`He's going to win. What if we went with him?'
"I was comfortable (at Marquette). I had already made my home and got my starting spot. But I got to thinking more about it. I knew God was telling me to do it. I still had no idea where we were going. Coach Tyler wouldn't talk to us because he is so big about following the rules. We just knew he wasn't at Marquette, and we wanted to go with him. We asked for a release before we knew where we were going or if (Coach Tyler) would even offer us a spot." |
Where does that say that Santos talked Pumroy into transferring? Santos asked "What if...?" and the two decided to go. If anyone was guilty of coercion, it appears to be God, based on this account.
And even if Santos were jealous, I don't see how she's petty for reporting the situation to the other coaches, and unless she's the unnamed source about an untrue pregnancy, I don't see where vicious rumors are in play either.
|
|
Lillian Hidgepork
Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 104
Location: Down South
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 11:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
There is a concept in tort law called "defamation per se", which varies in its availability and elements from state to state. In states that retain the tort of defamation per se, certain statements about a person are deemed inherently defamatory, by law, without having to prove damages. Statements that are defamatory per se often include such things as allegations of sexual immorality, unchaste behavior and, for a woman, a false accusation of pregnancy.
The tort can be found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 570 (2013), and Louisiana apparently is one of the remaining defamation per se jurisdictions. |
Enjoy your $1 recovery. Don't spend it in one place.
Besides, the "immoral" and "unchaste" behavior are true so obviously not actionable. |
As I've stated, Summitt is likely a "public figure" and has admitted to an inappropriate relationship. I don't think the primary defamation or false light litigation risk lies with him.
I do think there is a defamation risk per se or even per quod if a named woman is stated to have engaged in adultery and has become pregnant, assuming that allegation is not true. Punitive and court sanctioned damages are available in per se cases in addition to actual damages. That's why mainstream outlets who have lawyers, like ESPN, have stayed away from reporting that allegation, especially specific to a named woman. Swish Appeal, in my opinion, has exposure unless its sourced information can be proven true, although they have mitigated their risk by not naming the woman. |
If ALL the allegations involving the woman are false, she probably has a claim. In view of the information that has become public and statements from people surrounding the situation, that likelihood appears remote at best.
If the basic allegation of the affair is true, and the only issue is whether she's pregnant or not, then by voluntarily engaging in conduct that has resulted in a national public scandal at a major state university and the resignation of the head coach, she has almost certainly become a limited public figures with respect to publications concerning the particular scandal, and would have to prove actual malice, plus she likely has no incremental damages beyond those resulting from her own voluntary conduct in having an affair.
Mainstream media doesn't identify the names of young women in these situations because it's the PC thing to do and to avoid criticism, not because they're afraid of losing a lawsuit. They could have it on videotape and they still wouldn't want to be the first major outlet to release her name. |
Art why the hard line. Keep yapping your flapper and maybe they can get some of your money. Facts are you just cant throw stuff out there about people if its not true and expect nobody to fight back. Do you know if this is 100%true? If not I would suggest you talk about something you know about, which is not this story. Where did you hear this Art? Please tell us your source? And everyone else where did you hear this and who confirmed it for you? Delete them tweets peoples and shut that trap Art before it gets you in trouble. If this is not true and I repeat NOT true this will get ugly.
|
|
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/16 11:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Lillian Hidgepork wrote: |
| Delete them tweets peoples and shut that trap Art before it gets you in trouble. If this is not true and I repeat NOT true this will get ugly. |
Too late.
_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/10/16 12:20 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Lillian Hidgepork wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
There is a concept in tort law called "defamation per se", which varies in its availability and elements from state to state. In states that retain the tort of defamation per se, certain statements about a person are deemed inherently defamatory, by law, without having to prove damages. Statements that are defamatory per se often include such things as allegations of sexual immorality, unchaste behavior and, for a woman, a false accusation of pregnancy.
The tort can be found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 570 (2013), and Louisiana apparently is one of the remaining defamation per se jurisdictions. |
Enjoy your $1 recovery. Don't spend it in one place.
Besides, the "immoral" and "unchaste" behavior are true so obviously not actionable. |
As I've stated, Summitt is likely a "public figure" and has admitted to an inappropriate relationship. I don't think the primary defamation or false light litigation risk lies with him.
I do think there is a defamation risk per se or even per quod if a named woman is stated to have engaged in adultery and has become pregnant, assuming that allegation is not true. Punitive and court sanctioned damages are available in per se cases in addition to actual damages. That's why mainstream outlets who have lawyers, like ESPN, have stayed away from reporting that allegation, especially specific to a named woman. Swish Appeal, in my opinion, has exposure unless its sourced information can be proven true, although they have mitigated their risk by not naming the woman. |
If ALL the allegations involving the woman are false, she probably has a claim. In view of the information that has become public and statements from people surrounding the situation, that likelihood appears remote at best.
If the basic allegation of the affair is true, and the only issue is whether she's pregnant or not, then by voluntarily engaging in conduct that has resulted in a national public scandal at a major state university and the resignation of the head coach, she has almost certainly become a limited public figures with respect to publications concerning the particular scandal, and would have to prove actual malice, plus she likely has no incremental damages beyond those resulting from her own voluntary conduct in having an affair.
Mainstream media doesn't identify the names of young women in these situations because it's the PC thing to do and to avoid criticism, not because they're afraid of losing a lawsuit. They could have it on videotape and they still wouldn't want to be the first major outlet to release her name. |
Art why the hard line. Keep yapping your flapper and maybe they can get some of your money. Facts are you just cant throw stuff out there about people if its not true and expect nobody to fight back. Do you know if this is 100%true? If not I would suggest you talk about something you know about, which is not this story. Where did you hear this Art? Please tell us your source? And everyone else where did you hear this and who confirmed it for you? Delete them tweets peoples and shut that trap Art before it gets you in trouble. If this is not true and I repeat NOT true this will get ugly. |
As I said, I assume you're not a lawyer. Is that correct?
|
|
Carol Anne
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1739
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
|
|
|
