LEGAL TIME: A LOOK AT THE TWO DEFAMATION CASES

mhblatt — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:42:00 +0000

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.

Michael Vick Dogfighting Page

BONDS SET TO SUE SCHILLING FOR DEFAMATION

mhblatt — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:02:00 +0000

Mitchell Blatt

Schilling Made Comments About Bonds’ ‘Roid Use? Really?! Who Else Did?

Apparently Kurt Schilling destoryed Barry Bonds’ reputation when he called him a “cheater.” Because of those damages, Bonds is suing Schilling for defamation of character. (Bonds has character?) With the US legal system the way it is, it isn’t at all surprising that Bonds is suing over defamation, but it is kind of interesting to hear that his first course of business is taking on Schilling. I mean, it’s not like Schilling wrote a book accusing hundreds of players of using steroids… With that in mind, Juiced Sports does the first in a really long series of weekly installments listing people who Bonds should sue instead. It’ll be kind of like Stephen Colbert’s “Better Know A District.”

Key:
Has Enough Assets to Warrant Trial
Too Young to Sue
First-hand Knowledge of Bonds’ Baseballs
Trashed Bonds on TV
Wrote Book (In Some Form of Another)
Designed Bonds’ Steroids

Jose Canseco
Boy, isn’t this one obvious.

Gary Sheffield
He told the San Francisco grand jury investigating steroid use in 2003 that he and Bonds took steroids during the 2000-01 offseason while training at Bonds’ residence. Now that he is outside of a grand jury, he denied taking steroids, saying, “Steroids is something you stick in your butt, period.” That makes me wonder what else Sheff would have admitted to sticking in his butt were he in front of a grand jury.

Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams
They wrote “Game of Shadows”, the book that originally exposed Bonds’ steroids use to the general public.

Kimberly Bell
Bonds’ former mistress has told media that Bonds took ‘roids. She knows. She was in bed with him.

Patrick Arnold
He was the lead chemist for BALCO, and he’s in jail now for manufacturing steroids. (Bonds continues to play and makes good money for it even though he used steroids.) For what it’s worth, BALCO owner Victor Conte denied Arnold’s report, saying that Bonds’ BALCO training regiment consisted of only legal drugs. I don’t know who the believe. The man who created the drugs? Or the owner of the company trying to cover his ass? The one who contradicted himself under oath, that one.

Bob Costas
On his show, Bob Costas Now, Bob Costas (who else?) said, “I’m not in the category of those who say suspected juicer, I live on this planet, I’ve seen what I’ve seen, I know what I know.” Bonds’ feelings were hurt, so he responded with, “”Costas stated that what I am doing on the field is ‘inauthentic’ and he made some really strong accusations about me.” Oh, yeah, and “You’re a midget.”

Mitchell Blatt
The owner of Juiced Sports Blog.com has gone on the record calling Bonds on his use of illegal steroids. Bonds has yet to respond.

A Bunch of Little Leaguers
The boys at The Big Lead have a story on how Little Leaguers have been speaking out against Bonds. It’s terrible when victimless crimes become prevalent among kids at such a young age.

Check back next week for another installment, or sign up for our email newsletter, and we will email you when the next installment is posted. (Newsletter signup is at the top of the page, above the posts, below the FOX fantasy football link.)

Juiced Sports Blog*: Writing Enhanced by Flaxseed Oil » Defamation

LEGAL TIME: A LOOK AT THE TWO DEFAMATION CASES

Vaughn vs. Imus

Bonds vs. Schilling

BONDS SET TO SUE SCHILLING FOR DEFAMATION