Does this constitute libel?

Isn't one of the parts of a successful libel suit is having to prove malice? Having to convince nine of 12 jurors that the writer in question knowingly and willfully wrote what he knew to be incorrect simply to cause harm is one of the reasons libel suits rarely are successful.

 

What a hack ...

 

They would also have to prove that they are not alcoholics. Something that's very subjective.

 

At least he gave me permission to get angry.
As was said, his biggest problem seems to be that he acted like the case went to trial when it, of course, didn't.
That makes the OJ analogy fall kind of flat.
Maybe it is an interesting question to pose, though, what would happen if the athletes were black and the accuser was white, but it's not like the players weren't unfairly damned by the media at the start of this whole thing as it was.
Anyway, definitely not something that should run in a paper, but considering what's out there online, this isn't exactly bad, either.

 

A public figure has to prove actual malice, which is extremely hard.

A private person only has to prove reckless disregard for the truth.

 

And now we're back to the part where we have to consider whether the three players count as public figures. I would say yes. But you ask 10 people, you'll probably see a 50-50 split.

 

Right. The issue would be whether the Duke lacrosse players are considered limited public figures or private citizens. Obviously the President and the Pope and Bono and your big-time names would be public figures. The superintendent of Butthole Falls (Iowa) Schools would be a limited public figure, in that he'd be a public figure in Butthole Falls but not in New York or Los Angeles.

Are the Duke players enough of a public figure to warrant the higher standards? In Durham, and in lacrosse circles, yet. In Seattle, probably not (most people know the general facts of the case, but couldn't tell you their names or pick them out of a lineup). On the interwebs? Interesting call.

 

Actually, Meat, it depends on that state, but I think a lot of places, anyone who runs for elected office becomes a public figure.

So if superintendent is an elected position, or appointed by an elected school board and technically head of that board, then I think a superintendent would constitute a full-fledged public figure.

A judge would have to decide if the Dookies were full public figures or limited public figures. I don't think there is any chance they are private citizens...

 

The superintendent example was the one offered up in one of my media law classes, but the teacher wasn't any great shakes, so maybe he was wrong.

My layman's take is they'd be more likely to be considered limited public figures because theirs aren't household names outside Durham. And if they aren't considered public figures for the context provided, then they have a shot at damages, albeit probably not a great one.

 

Wow. That guy has absolutely no understanding of the basic facts of the case. None.

If you are going to write a column about something at least read one or two brief write-ups on it. It might help.

 

It's a column. You can write your opinion in a column.

Overboard, maybe. Hack job, maybe.

But that's what columns are for. Provoke public opinion, both sides.

And Nifong is a public figure now, so the gloves are off.

It's been dirt and dirt all the way, so more of same.

 

We're not talking about Nifong.