It seems Deadspin is about to go guns blazing at ESPN re: sex rumors

If that's all it would have taken, I'd have dug up the Muppets long ago...

 

All this because he was upset that a company didn't comment on a personnel matter, which companies rarely comment on?

As for the legal stuff, having some secondhand experience with dicey stories, I do know that while the stuff might have been presented to the lawyers and the lawyers gave their say, in the end Gawker/Deadspin can do whatever the hell they want. The lawyers will simply let them know what the risks are with doing it, and might be quite upset if they do go ahead with it. But just because it did appear on the site, doesn't necessarily mean it has the lawyer's approval.

 

Stick around a while, DD. You are missed.



(I have no idea what this picture has to do with my point. Am I Sweetums longing for Kermit, i.e. Double Down, to return? Or am I projecting that Double Down is Sweetums longing for a return to SJ, embodied by Kermit The Frog? Or is it just a pathetic stab at posting a Muppets picture, and one with an obscurantist Muppet character at that? Discuss.)

 

Do you know what "actual malice" is in the context of defamation law?

 

Lean toward the ladder?

 

I would say this passage constitutes the latter, hence my problem with any of this being published today. Daulerio prefaced all these accusations that he's aware they may or may not be true.

I think your previous post, Big Ragu, was spot-on though. It might not be worth it for ESPN to pursue anything since it will put a spotlight on their HR practices and employees' personal lives. This seems analogous to a low-level boxer calling out the champ to anyone who will listen. It's not worth it for the champ to fight a chump - if he wins, so what? But if he loses, it completely decimates him. The chump challenger has nothing to lose but gains notoriety so in a way, has already won. It's an unfortunate and unethical way to operate a media outlet, though.

Point of Order...I'm incredibly embarrassed. Good catch!

 

Re: Defamation

1. My remedies prof (an old dog; been through a lot of battles) just last week: Never bring a defamation case. They're never worth it.

2. Last week my employer company defended a defamation case that went to trial. The plaintiff was a small-time businessman. We won.

3. I covered a defamation case as a writer. The jury handed out a $30 million verdict for the plaintiff. The judge set it aside and the plaintiffs got nothing.

4. Defamation law and its intersection with the First Amendment is one of the more complicated areas of the law I've come across. There is great imprecision about how to draw the line between public/private figures, matters of public concern, reckless disregard for the truth, etc. For example, in the defamation trial I covered, the court ruled that the recruiting coordinator on a major D-I coaching staff was a public figure but that the running backs coach on the very same staff was not a public figure. I'm still trying to figure that one out.

The bottom line for me is too complicated to discuss in an off-the-cuff way without knowing specific facts and case law for the particular jurisdiction where a claim might be brought. If it was so clear cut there wouldn't be a need for high-priced lawyers.

 

I can't believe that this thread is even close to split on the topic. This place is always prone to jump on blogs for a lack of ethics, and this is literally the worst thing the blogosphere has ever done. Leaving aside how richly ESPN deserves it or not, Deadspin is outing people who did nothing particularly wrong without even bothering to do cursory fact-checking on the scurrilous emails it gets. As a blogger, I'm outraged at this garbage.

 

I'd like to see Deadspin expose how ESPN Classic became the place for the worst college football matchups on Saturdays. That would be a public service. Who's fucking who? Not so much. And I wouldn't call the veep a public figure.

Also, think about the challenge ESPN would face in court: There's a constitutional amendment favoring a free press; there's not one favoring freedom from defamation.

 

Exist.