Does this constitute libel?

[tapintoamerica]

Clay Travis ‏@ClayTravis Dec 21
Clay Travis Retweeted ESPN

Ray Lewis, double murderer, told Odell Beckham he went too far. Really.

I'm guessing the answer is no because Travis is (or was) an attorney. He'd have to know what could fly and what couldn't. But in light of the fact that Lewis pleaded to a lesser charge and was never actually convicted -- or even tried -- on murder, isn't such a statement at least risky?

 

[SnarkShark]

Yes. But it's doubtful Lewis would want to go to court to bring all this back into the open again.

 

[YankeeFan]

LOL. You think Lewis will sue?

His deposition would be fun.

 

[Double Down]

Would be almost impossible for Lewis to win a libel suit because:

1. He is a public figure

2. He would have to prove idiot Clay Travis knowingly stated false information, when village idiot Clay Travis could easily pretend he avoided all the coverage of Lewis' case other than the initial charges, and as far as he knew, Lewis was in fact guilty of double murder

3. Lewis would have to prove his reputation suffered somehow because of this claim on Twitter, which would also be virtually impossible.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Trump dragging Vince Foster into the political dialogue in 5, 4, 3...

 

[LongTimeListener]

As DD notes, it's not libel.

However, it is Clay Travis getting talked about, which is the entire point. He is the Skip Bayless of the Internet.

 

[SnarkShark]

I mean it could be libel, if Lewis chose to pursue it, which he won't.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I mean it could be libel, if Lewis chose to pursue it, which he won't.

I doubt that very much. Lewis being a public figure creates an almost impossibly high bar.

 

[SnarkShark]

I doubt that very much. Lewis being a public figure creates an almost impossibly high bar.

It is a high bar. He would have to prove actual malice, which is hard.

Just saying, it's not a slam dunk that it's not defamation.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Defamation isn't libel. You're mixing words and charges now.

 

[SnarkShark]

Libel is a type of defamation.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I'm bored, this isn't libel, have a good day.

 

[SnarkShark]

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

 

[LongTimeListener]

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

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.

 

[LongTimeListener]

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.

 

[DanOregon]

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.

 

[User 4332]

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.

 

[Double Down]

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.

 

[YankeeFan]

Clay Travis for President!

 

[SnarkShark]

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.