Holy Hell, Trevor Bauer 2.0!

[Taylor]

46 minutes ago, cals said:

The key is “knowingly false” information, F. Lee Taylor, Esq.

It is virtually impossible to prove that a media outlet acted with actual malice in publishing allegedly false information. 

[Taylor]

22 minutes ago, cals said:

It’s not “malice”.  It’s doing something with knowledge it was false.  I knew it was false.  I suspect you and @jsnpritchett and the rest of the gang did too.  It just didn’t fit your narrative so you rolled with it.  Deadspin likely did, too.

Stick to personal injury law. You don't understand how libel law works.

[Taylor]

18 minutes ago, cals said:

Ooooo, teach us Professor.  I’m dying to learn.

I've explained it before in other threads. Funny, I was talking with a personal injury attorney friend I know about the Sarah Palin stuff, and he understood how libel law works.

@wopphil knows, too.

[Taylor]

On 1/10/2018 at 2:04 PM, Taylor said:

I'm aware of this. But the reason it's essentially impossible for public figures to sue for libel (even against false, defamatory statements) is that public figures have to prove "actual malice"—which means reckless disregard for the truth. Basically, they have to prove that the "publisher" purposely and knowingly published false information. This is virtually impossible to prove (because it's very subjective, and the burden of proof is on the one bringing the suit).

Right now, if Nate or red or I post something defamatory about Trump that turns out to not be false, Trump doesn't have a case against AngelsWin (the publisher) unless he can prove that Nate, red, or I acted with actual malice. Similarly, if CNN publishes a defamatory article about Trump that turns out to include false information, Trump cannot sue unless he can prove that the staff of CNN acted with actual malice.

If CNN published defamatory, false information about, say, yvangel, yvangel could sue CNN and win because she is not a public official. 

If public officials could sue for libel, there would be a "chilling effect" in which individuals and the press would never dare speak out against the government, professional athletes, celebrities, etc., because if anything you said (published) turned out to be false, they could sue you.

 

[Taylor]

[T.G.]

It's funny when people don't realize they're being trolled.

[Taylor]

1 minute ago, cals said:

I think perhaps you are confused.  I don’t know where you got that explanation or description but if we’re arguing about the term “malice” well I wouldn’t use that term in a libel sense.  Maybe it is used but my instinct tells me it’s not used in an my legal sense.

The simple fact is you cannot knowingly publish false information.  It doesn’t matter if Bauer is a public figure.  You are correct that proving “knowledge” can be difficult.  Proving many things in many areas of the law can be challenging.  But it can be done through witness testimony or physical documentation.  Perhaps they have been approached by a Deadspin employee whistleblower.  Maybe an investigator has found incriminating evidence.  Maybe they’re just filing and fingers crossed. 

At this point we don’t know, but if it gets past summary judgment then they’ve got something.

Donny Boy tried hard to change the law because he couldn't handle the media saying negative things about him. He failed. Sarah Palin tried to do the same thing and the Supreme Court told her to take a hike.

If Bauer were to win this case, it would be the first of its kind. 

[Lou]

25 minutes ago, Taylor said:

If Bauer were to win this case, it would be the first of its kind. 

Carol Burnett disagrees.

[Angelsfan1984]

Malice is much harder to prove than gross negligence. 

[Docwaukee]

2 hours ago, Taylor said:

Donny Boy tried hard to change the law because he couldn't handle the media saying negative things about him. He failed. Sarah Palin tried to do the same thing and the Supreme Court told her to take a hike.

If Bauer were to win this case, it would be the first of its kind. 

you might want to read the article if you haven't.  The claim is that Deadspin published something that turned out not to be true ie the basilar skull fracture.  Deadspin is the only source to not have retracted the false report of that being the case even after Bauer and his people asked them to remove it.  And the source where deadspin got their info retracted or at least qualified the report.  So they may not have knowingly published false info from the start but once it was proved to be false, they didn't correct it even though they were clearly made aware that it wasn't true.  

It's an assumption, of course, that what's being reported is the truth, but if it is, it sure seems like he's got a case.  Especially considering that they were made aware of the inaccuracy and apparently declined to do anything about it.  

I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that the most complicated part of this would be trying to actually calculate damages.  Which is why Deadspin probably left it.  They probably felt like someone trying to monetize the difference between documented head trauma vs. a fracture and how the latter could be more damaging to someone's reputation than the former would be pretty tough.  

[notherhalo]

is his agent on the juice?  she has quite a hard body 

[ScottT]

Dude won't shut up all the sudden.  

[Docwaukee]

12 hours ago, cals said:

Innocent people tend to like to make sure people know they’re innocent when the press convicts them without due process.

or they're crazy.  

[Jason]

13 hours ago, cals said:

Innocent people tend to like to make sure people know they’re innocent when the press convicts them without due process.

 

25 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

or they're crazy.  

I think it’s both in this case 

[Taylor]

7 minutes ago, cals said:

Well good.  What the fuck would you do if you were wrongly accused? Would you say "ah shucks, she's got a screw loose, I'm sure she's a good person deep down and I'm going to forgive her even though she's ruined my career."

Bauer shouldn't hang around with people like that if he doesn't want to get into any trouble. If he had more personal responsibility this wouldn't have happened.

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

Bauer shouldn't hang around with people like that if he doesn't want to get into any trouble. If he had more personal responsibility this wouldn't have happened.

Replace Bauer with Breonna Taylor and your head would explode.

[Jason]

55 minutes ago, cals said:

Well good.  What the fuck would you do if you were wrongly accused? Would you say "ah shucks, she's got a screw loose, I'm sure she's a good person deep down and I'm going to forgive her even though she's ruined my career."

Nope. I’d sue the shit out of as many people as possible. I may still be a crazy person though. 

[Taylor]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

Replace Bauer with Breonna Taylor and your head would explode.

[jsnpritchett]

 

[Inside Pitch]

7 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

 

It feels like he's been on a "one week" administrative "leave" since the Bush administration.

[Blarg]

This has been a longer deliberation than the CBA. 

[Don]

13 minutes ago, cals said:

He's gonna sue the shit out of MLB.

And win.

You can't suspend someone for engaging in consensual sexual activity, no matter how distasteful you find it.  And MLBs lawyers are trying to explain that to them right now.

Yeah, hard to see how they'd have a leg to stand on. Given the investigation/legal outcome a suspension would basically just be kink-shaming the dude at this point.

[Jason]

2 hours ago, cals said:

He's gonna sue the shit out of MLB.

And win.

You can't suspend someone for engaging in consensual sexual activity, no matter how distasteful you find it.  And MLBs lawyers are trying to explain that to them right now.

Lol that MLB thinks it can suspend players for how they have sex

[Blarg]

Now you're not getting laid along with kicked off used car lots?  Damn, Cals, this sure has been a rough year for you. 

[HanfordGuy]

I bet all this mess wouldn’t have happened if Bauer had signed with the Halos.