LEGAL TIME: A LOOK AT THE TWO DEFAMATION CASES
Mitchell Blatt
Goldigging Hoopster Sues Nappy-Headed Radio Host;
Bonds Vs. Schilling
Already with experience losing the national championship, Rutgers basketball player Kia Vaughn has decided to engage in another losing battle, suing radio shock jock Don Imus, who called the Rutgers womens basketball team “nappy-headed hos.” Vaughn says that her character was assaulted and maligned due to that comment. I say that she is showing her true character by attempting to bring this case to court. Her reputation was not hurt at all because almost everyone went after Imus and sympathized with her.
In another case, Barry Bonds is suing Kurt Schilling for calling him a “cheater” and accusing him of steroid use. Each of these cases have no chance to win in court, as they do not live up to the standards of defamation. Those standards will be explored in this article.
The standards for defamation are:
1.) The statement must be false. (It must be proved to be false with “convincing clairity.” The burden of proof is on the plaintiff.)
2.) The statement must have hurt the reputation of the plaintiff.
3.) The statement must have been said with malice, that is with the intent to damage the reputation.
Possible defenses:
1.) The statement was true.
2.) The statement was a joke or parody. (See Hustler Vs. Jerry Falwell.)
3.) The statement (in the case of an opinion, such as “This man is a cheater.”) was made about a national figure.
Now, these standards will be put to use in each of the cases.
Vaughn vs. Imus
False? “Nappy-headed hos” is an opinion, so this isn’t really applicable, but it could certainly qualify for defamation. EDGE: Wash
Hurt the reputation? Vaughn was virtually unknown before the comment, unknown afterwards, and not very well-known until she sued Imus, so it didn’t really do anything to her reputation. The comment was made about the team as a whole, not an individual player. Furthermore, the vast majority of society went against Imus, not the team. EDGE: Imus (Imus wins, but let’s keep going.)
Done with malice? Imus is known to make controversial and racist comments on his show. He doesn’t mean for them to be taken seriously. He did not mean for any harm to be inflicted to anyone’s reputation with this statement. EDGE: Imus
Defenses
Joke/Parody Imus’ entire show was based on making racist comments about certain people and events. Thus, it can be assumed that the Rutgers comment was also a joke.
National Figure The Rutgers basketball team had recently lost the Womens Final Four championship, so they were a national figure.
Imus wins.
Next case…
Bonds vs. Schilling
Both of them are losing a little as they get older, but they are still solid players. Bonds is batting .280 with 25 home runs. Schilling is 6-5 with a 4.51 ERA. It looks like a pretty even matchup…
Okay, on a more serious note:
False? Since the burden of proof is on Bonds, it would be hard for him to prove that Schilling’s comments about him taking steroids were false, but a good lawyer might be able to do it. EDGE: Wash
Hurt reputation? Bonds was already considered a steroid-user long before Schilling started speaking out. Furthermore, he would have to prove how the comments acctually hurt him. Did he lose marketting contracts? Did he get cut from the team? Simply being offended or being ridiculed is not grounds for defamation. EDGE: Schilling Schilling wins.
Done with malice? Since Schilling has been trashing Bonds for a year or so now and going out of his way to call him a cheater on Bob Costas Now, it is pretty easy to prove that he did so with malice. EDGE: Bonds
Defenses:
National Figure Having set the home run record, Bonds is something of a celebrity, so there isn’t anything terribly illegal about calling him a “cheater” whether or not he cheated.
For more info on defamation, check out Gregory A. Abbott (Esq.)’s law offices and their page on defamation.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Leave a Reply