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!

Imus Sued By Rutgers Hoopster

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Flying Headbutt, Aug 15, 2007.

  1. Tom Petty

    Tom Petty Guest

    touche.
     
  2. Mystery_Meat

    Mystery_Meat Guest

    She'd have more success suing Kia Motors for making crap cars, thus defaming her.
     
  3. One legal settlement begets another.
    Fuckabuncha I-man.
     
  4. trifectarich

    trifectarich Well-Known Member

    The only thing that's damaging her reputation is her stupidity.
     
  5. Yes, because, as we know, there should be no recourse for anyone slandered by a pathetic sexagenarian bad boy and his unemployable suckfish.
    Has Bernard compared himself to Holocaust victims again recently?
     
  6. While it may be kind of absurd, it's hardly stupid. She'll probably get a chunk of his $20 million just to settle it. Where can I line up to come out of obscurity and get slandered by a millionaire?
     
  7. trifectarich

    trifectarich Well-Known Member

    Stop 1,000 people on the streets of New York City and ask them, "Who is Kia Vaughan?" and I'll bet you 999 have no clue. Ask the same question in Piscataway, N.J., and the same response is probably given by 9 out of 10. Outside of her own family, no one knows who she is.

    Quit wasting our time with such idiotic pursuits. Go do something worthwhile.
     
  8. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    Regardless of what any of us think, the law basically says 'go for it.'

    This is slander per se, and one of the definitions includes allegations that an unmarried person (particularly a young woman) is 'unchaste.'

    And under the 'per se' law, she doesn't have to prove damages.

    That said....she's going to find the court of public opinion far less generous than the first time around. Same for the media; her suit also includes MSNBC, NBC Universal, CBS Radio, CBS Corp., Viacom, and Westwood One Radio.
     
  9. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Really? That doesn't sound right. What are you suing for if not damages? Punitive damages? For name calling?
     
  10. Joel_Goodsen

    Joel_Goodsen Member

    Alas, the end of our country as we know it is surely near.

    Please, dear God, let this lawsuit be laughed out of court before it even hits the front steps.
     
  11. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    I think you misunderstood--she's suing for damages, she just doesn't have to prove them. Libel/slander per se means the statement itself was damaging as is...you don't have to debate whether the statement damaged you. You just have to prove that the statement was made.
     
  12. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    But then what do you get from the defendant if there are no damages?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page