First it would be slander, not libel, because it was spoken.
Second, they are limited public figures. You can make fun of their play and activities on the court all you want. HOWEVER, describing them as nappy-headed hos falls outside of their activities on the court and is personal defamation.
Lastly, bringing a suit may not be such a great idea. It will bring more publicity to Imus (who does not need any more free publicity for his show thankyouverymuch) and will not gain the players much in money. Read on for further illumination:
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.
The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.
A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".
While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.
The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.
Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.
Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.
In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.
2007-04-09 23:50:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by Yo, Teach! 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Kia Vaughn filed the lawsuit alleging slander and defamation of character in state dazzling court interior the Bronx Tuesday, the comparable day Imus settled with CBS Radio in a deal that pre-empts his threatened $one hundred twenty million breach-of-settlement lawsuit against CBS. The settlement facilitates him to make a comeback bid at a sparkling station. i'm valuable that when her legal experts noted as her and defined the above settlement. all of the "Nappy Headed !@#$" might desire to work out could be $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...
2016-10-21 10:48:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Theoretically, you can sue anybody in this country.
2007-04-09 11:43:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by tedhyu 5
·
0⤊
1⤋