"Honestly, I don't believe she's motivated by money." [more]
Bull and shit.
I commented on this over at the Mack's message board, but you would think that when the Rutgers team met Imus to discuss a means by which this could all be put behind them ... you would think that there would have been an agreement against this kind of thing.
On further reflection, I like the part in this article, where they have to prove that what Imus said was not slanderous, i.e. that Vaughn is, in fact, neither nappy headed, nor a ho. In other words, Imus' defense could consist of guys who can attest to Vaughn giving it up, and we ain't talking about her assists, HAW!!!
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Kia Vaughn can eat a dick, straight up
1 comment:
Over at the Mack's you said Imus should win on freedom of speech terms and you may not have been completely serious about that, but for the sake of me writing a bunch of words, I'll assume you were and disagree with it. Freedom of speech isn't carte blanche to make baseless malignant statements against others. Honestly our libel and slander laws aren't as stringent as they should be (although they shouldn't be restrictive, either). Malicious intent shouldn't have to be proven when someone makes unverified or outright dishonest claims that can damage a person's reputation.
That said, this lawsuit is fucking stupid. Libel doesn't apply because libel is for commentary in a fixed medium, essentially printed mediums. Also, SCOTUS ruled in 1988 that allegations believed by no one bear no liability and the results of the entire debacle (Imus fired from two jobs, multiple apologies) pretty much ensured that no one took the comments seriously. And there is usually some kind of monetary damage that must be done to warrant a defamation ruling. This is a lawsuit in search of a settlement. Imus should force this case to trial; he's already taken all the beating over it that he can and he probably stands a decent chance of winning.
Post a Comment