1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does this constitute libel?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by tapintoamerica, Dec 23, 2015.

  1. SnarkShark

    SnarkShark Well-Known Member

    Sounds like someone just googled that libel is a type of defamation.
     
  2. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Nah. I made a quick decision to distance myself from your increasingly oop-like arguments about things that aren't arguments.

    However, I did just Google it now after reading your post, and I realize I incorrectly lumped "false light" in with defamation. A common mistake, but my mistake nonetheless. Apologies.

    The points stands, though: This isn't libel. Lewis is too public. Essentially we could print Starman's wildest Trump fantasies in the New York Times, and they would be protected because of that.
     
  3. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    I should add though -- in truth Lewis has never been declared factually innocent. He was once charged with double murder, he copped a plea, and that was that. Given what we've learned in the ensuing 15 years about the way the NFL (and specifically the Ravens) handle criminal cases involving their stars, it's a pretty safe bet that the final judicial outcome does not reflect what happened in the limousine.
     
  4. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Has Lewis been re-upped? I figure his initial deal is set to expire in the next year and I'd be surprised if he re-signs. I don't think he brings anything to the table. Besides, it isn't like ESPN has a shortage of people willing to become part of a story and fan the flames.
     
  5. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member

    Yes, it absolutely constitutes libel.

    DD is right that as a public figure Ray Lewis would have to prove that Clay Travis either knew it was false or published with reckless disregard for the falsity of the statement. That's "actual malice"

    Unlike DD, I think that is quite easy to get to, since Lewis' story is well known and part of that story is his plea to a much lesser crime than two counts of homicide. That is excellent evidence in Lewis' favor in a libel case.

    If he can prove the actual malice standard above for fault purposes, then he can prove it for purposes of getting presumed and punitive damages, making the harm element easier to meet. Travis would have to affirmatively prove that Lewis' reputation is so low it can't be harmed.

    But like SnarkShark stated out of the gate, there are practical reasons Lewis won't go down that road.
     
    SnarkShark likes this.
  6. Double Down

    Double Down Well-Known Member

    The larger point here is what LTL alluded to, which is that Clay Travis is like a slightly smarter, more computer-literate version of Mark Madden, an old SJ fav. He will say or anything to keep his name in people's mouths. He is a businessman, a troll who has taken a look at the marketplace and noticed that the uneducated and willfully stupid majority feels marginalized, and he convinces them that they are victims who are being shamed for holding the kind of beliefs that were widely and loudly held just 20 years ago. I kind of admire the shamelessness of it, in a way. I don't think Clay believes half of what he writes any more than Mitch Albom does about all puppies wanting to nuzzle your grandfather's feet in heaven. But he knows there is a market for it, and you win by convincing people you're the only one brave enough to say these kind of "controversial" takes, when in fact these kind of stupid takes are commonplace, especially in groups of people who are purposefully not well read, or tired of being told their semi-bigoted opinions aren't welcome anymore in mainstream society.

    Clay Travis is going to die a rich dude. He works hard at the hustle, I'll say that. He is the perfect Fox Sports 1 employee, and it's clear he is being rewarded handsomely for the way he's mastered professional trolling.
     
  7. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Clay Travis for President!
     
  8. SnarkShark

    SnarkShark Well-Known Member

    We know who Clay Travis is and how he operates. I don't see how that is the larger point, when the specific question regarding this specific case was whether what he said could be considered defamatory.
     
  9. Steak Snabler

    Steak Snabler Well-Known Member

    Ray Lewis would never have killed anyone wearing the nice clothes he was wearing, or at least that's what he said in his book.

    Case closed.
     
    Stoney likes this.
  10. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    After all, proper attire is a prerequisite for murder. The NFL would have fined him for a uniform violation.
     
  11. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Doesn't that also speak strongly to the idea that Lewis probably wasn't guilty of homicide?
     
  12. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member

    Yes, absolutely.

    An additional thought about this: Writers should only use the word "murderer" to describe someone who has been convicted.
     
    Double Down likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page