I think yes as long as they are considered public figures. The statement that "truth is a defense" (i.e., burden is on the defendant) is generally correct for defamation suits by private individuals (e.g., some non-famous dude slandered by a former employer giving a bad professional reference), subject to possible variation in some states.
Kramer: "You gotta listen to the little man inside!"
Yeah, my (fuzzy) recollection is that defamation plaintiffs have to prove that the challenged statements are false if they are public figures, and that the burden also extends to private figures if the statements involve a matter of public concern.
Yes, the plaintiff must always prove each element of his claim (usually by a preponderance of the evidence); namely, that the defendant 1) made a communication 2) to a third party 3) of false statements 4) which an ordinary person would find damaging to his character. When the plaintiff is a public figure, he must also demonstrate (by clear and convincing evidence) that the statement was made 5) with malice (knowingly false, or with reckless disregard for truth).
As I read the Times report, the dots are pretty easily connected:
We knew that when you suggested that Ryan Zimmermann is a potential HoF candidate, in any future scenario.
I don't know if it's that simple given that Sly probably told AJ repeatedly before broadcast that what he said on camera was not the truth and they should scrap it.
As long as they also report the recantation, does that help them clear any defamation issues?
Yet, he was in the apartment with Teagarden who was openly discussing his use of these drugs. So, is his position that only the car scenes were lies?
okay. I have a giant head. I just measured it -- 10 inches from my chin to the top of my head. This is me standing 6 inches behind Peyton (on a downward slope, we are both about 6'5". He has a GINORMOUS head now.I don't know, looks like his head is almost a full inch taller.
You need to go full Exponent and shop that picture so your shoulder is in front of his so it looks like he is standing behind you.
Hahaha...he's absolutely tripping over his own feet trying to come up with excuses there. Let's see, working backwards...
...because no one cares about him. Google shows more hits for "Taylor Teagarden wife" than "Taylor Teagarden."
I get that nobody cares about a journeyman catcher but anyone looking critically at this story would immediately notice the disconnect between Sly recanting everything and the fact that Sly had an actual professional athlete show up at his door to discuss all this stuff. I get that journalists/media today are awful but holy shit, this is easy.
With a direct hit on the lead zeppelin known as Peter King. Finn is a favorite of SI media columnist Richard Deitsch. It will be interesting to see whether Deitsch follows up at all on this one. No doubt King will respond in some fashion. He has the inability to let things that knock him go unanswered.
But - he was trying to play that season and HGH was banned by the NFL. It's not like he was IR'ed. If the report is true, he was using while on the active roster. I'd also be surprised if he wasn't tested during that time.
For me it was when I first tried a Papa John's pizza. What kind of monster would pitch that?
This is what I was talking about in the Brady Chef thread; Brady goes out of his way to not talk about himself, probably out of some combination of wanting to stay private and a recognition that he lives a very privileged (read: "different") life. Yet when details about his private life emerge, he's taken to task on it.
If that day comes, it'll be interesting to see if the political process is as gentle with his drug and sex transgressions as the tame hands at the WWL
Brady's diet is ludicrous. He's getting mocked for it because 1) it's so different from what regular people eat -- not just in America, but everywhere and 2) the justification for the diet is completely ungrounded in reality.
Holy shit, even knowing what Clayton was going to say, this is absolutely infuriating to listen to. Finn's piece is great, but put aside Nantz and King's comments: listening to Clayton, there can be zero doubt that reporters are intentionally looking the other way and tying themselves in knots to do so.
The Al Jazeera brand seems to have negative equity in the US. I wonder if the story would have gotten more traction if AJ had a subsidiary with a generic name like International News Agency or some such.
"If the glove doesn't fit, you acquit."
Like Derek Jeter?
Your lips to God's ears, without any Dungy editorial proselytizing in between...
The people I'm referring to were calling him a "dick" and "pretentious" about his diet. Their problem wasn't with his eccentric, but very healthy, diet. Likewise he also caught some flack nationally a few months ago for calling Coca-Cola poison. I get why people are mocking him but I find it very revealing that people mock a guy for being an earnest and passionate fitness nut while we like the jovial corporate shill.
Great post leather, and agreed on Brady's dim chances of running for office. I mean, maybe he could win in Massachusetts because who the hell isn't going to vote for Tom Brady, but something tells me he won't be interested in the limelight in the first place - unless he takes up some political cause, and then decides he can best advance it by taking a Tom Osborne path. I think the same may happen with Jon Stewart.
Frankly, I'm no fan of Manning, but I think all the callbacks to this incident (and I've read a few of them in this and the other thread) are kinda grasping a bit too far. The guy was a douchebag, he had to pay a settlement for it (twice! because he couldn't shut up), but he was also 19 years old. I don't think we should be judging the Peyton Manning of 2016 based on what happened in 1996, as if it's a clear guide to his character today, any more than most of us in our 30s would want to be judged on everything we did when we were 19. In nearly all cases, punishment shouldn't be a permanent, eternal thing. There are much better ways to evaluate Peyton through things he is still doing, or recently did (as alleged by Sly).
I'll bet Peyton is actually similar to Brady and does all kinds of crazy diet and exercise things--we know he takes HGH and I'm sure he has some elaborate stretching/massage/weight lifting/acupuncture/yoga/medicine routine. But folks are willing to think he's just an ordinary guy because he pretends to drive a buick and like chicken parm
I don't doubt it. I was just pointing out the snark aimed Brady's way for his diet at the same time that *he's* the healthy one. (I know....lots of luck involved there, too.)
I'm not so much attempting to draw a connection from the use of HGH to the sexual misconduct as much as I am trying to point to an example of the national media treating Peyton differently than others, especially as it relates to his ability to spin a story to meet his desire.
The incident itself is old news, but the idea that ESPN left his version of the event unchallenged is telling.
