Oklahoma State coach Gundy blasts Oklahoman columnist

http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2003/august/nw0815-5.htm

I already posted this once but I'm happy to post it again. Yes, it's about a high school athlete but obviously the West Virginia Supreme Court feels it applies to all amateur athletes - even college. All I'm saying is this court isn't the only one who feels this way. They're all over - especially Republican appointments (but obviously not all Republican appointments.)

Newspapers should continue to proceed with the way they do things and take it to the highest court possible if they run into another judge like this - because we're right. All I'm saying, and all I've been saying is not all judges are on our side. Hell, sometimes the law isn't even on our side. Doesn't mean we're wrong, but we have to be careful. Lots of reporters, especially some on here, think they're bulletproof.

I wish that were true.

 

Here's the dissenting opinion in that case I referenced above.

McGraw, J., dissenting:

As undesireable as I believe it is to make young high school students public figures, I believe that, in fact, is what our society has done. Consequently, I believe that the student involved in the present case should be so categorized.

For the foregoing reason, I respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Justice Albright joins me in this dissent.

 

Let's all chew on this (even if our mommies feed it to us).

Let's say that the chicken-feeding incident had been used in a positive Carlson column on Reid (if he was still the QB and OSU was 4-0)? Does that change anyone's opinion?

Or what if Carlson had observed Reid doing something else while waiting for the bus (picking his nose, scratching his ass) and used it in a negative column?

 

And what does having his mom feed him do with his ability to lead?

 

http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs/spring03/31045.htm


This is from the West Virginia Supreme Court ruling. Three and four are pretty interesting. For my attackers, all I've been saying is many courts disagree on paragraph 4. If the coach's initial allegation has legs - that the story was false - they could find a judge who agrees with their interpretation of No. 4 and make life difficult for the columnist because the burden will be on the newspaper. That's all I've been saying.

1. Whether a plaintiff in a defamation action is a public figure is a question of law for the trial court.

2. On appeal, the trial court's resolution of disputed factual questions bearing on the public figure determination is reviewed for clear error, while the trial court's resolution of the ultimate question of public figure status is a question of law subject to de novo review.

3. In a claim for defamation, there are three recognized categories of public figures: (1) “involuntary public figures,” who become public figures through no purposeful action of their own; (2) “all-purpose public figures,” who achieve such pervasive fame or notoriety that they become public figures for all purposes and in all contexts; and (3) “limited purpose public figures,” who voluntarily inject themselves into a particular public controversy and thereby become public figures for a limited range of issues.

4. In a defamation action, in order to find that a plaintiff is an all-purpose public figure, a defendant must produce clear evidence of the plaintiff's general fame or notoriety in the state, and pervasive involvement in the affairs of society. In determining whether a plaintiff is an all-purpose public figure, a trial court may consider (1) statistical survey data concerning the plaintiff's name recognition; (2) evidence of previous coverage of the plaintiff by the media; (3) evidence that others alter or reevaluate their conduct or ideas in light of the plaintiff's actions; and (4) any other relevant evidence.

5. “A libel plaintiff is a limited purpose public figure if the defendant proves the following: (1) the plaintiff voluntarily engaged in significant efforts to influence a public debate--or voluntarily assumed a position that would propel him to the forefront of a public debate--on a matter of public concern; (2) the public debate or controversy and the plaintiff's involvement in it existed prior to the publication of the allegedly libelous statement; and (3) the plaintiff had reasonable access to channels of communication that would permit him to make an effective response to the defamatory statement in question.” Syllabus point 3, State ex rel. Suriano v. Gaughan, 198 W. Va. 339, 480 S.E.2d 548 (1996).

6. In a defamation action, to prove that a plaintiff is an involuntary public figure, the defendant must demonstrate by clear evidence that (1) the plaintiff has become a central figure in a significant public controversy, (2) that the allegedly defamatory statement has arisen in the course of discourse regarding the public matter, and (3) the plaintiff has taken some action, or failed to act when action was required, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would understand that publicity would likely inhere.

 

One of my first theories, after reading her column (and sensing deep background) and seeing the video, was that Gundy acted like a coach who knows his program has leaks, and he's lost control of:

a) at least some of the staff
b) himself

 

Was your mammy feeding you at 21, boots? I somehow doubt it.

 

OK, W-B, that's one. You said several courts had ruled that way.

 

This is not an attack. First of all you attacked me because I have a couple of plaques that you apparently don't. But who gives a schatt about that?

Now for the real subject. Your whole argument is based on a HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETE. It's the only litigation you can cite. You are wrong and you know it. Give it up. You are only making yourself look small by continuing to defend the indefensible.

Now, time for me to go back to staring at my awards on my walls. Did you dust those cobwebs and dust bunnies off your cubicle yet? Looks like you need to tidy things up a bit around there.

 

I'm quite sure this youngster wasn't being fed like a baby. drooling and all. She might have caught his mom giving him some soup to taste or something like that. Hell I took my mom out last night and she gave me some sweet potatoe french fries to try.
And so what if his mom feeds him. As long as he can perform on the field, that's all that matters. Apparently, that's the problem.

 

Again, I am not supporting the column. But why else include this detail unless he was "being fed like a baby"?

 

God, you're an ass. The ruling also mentions college students.