Should The Young Ladies Sue Imus (Poll)

I really doubt that there is any way to sue Imus for what he said. For defamation of character (which includes libel and slander), a false statement of fact that causes monetary damage or material damage to one's reputation must be proven. I don't think that Imus could be proven to have fulfilled all of those characteristics.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I might be wrong. (Because actual lawyers can't be wrong. Or something.)

Aunk, I think, hope and pray that you give shock jock imus way too much credit for being an influence on this country. I don't know anyone that has even listened to him once. He is of no value in setting standards or establishing one's credibility. The man is an idiot. Effect Rutgers recruitment? He has no bearing on the respect and the dignity these young women have earned. He is a flea on the ankle. These young women are so much more. Why dignify Imus with all this attention as though he is a cultural spokesman. He's a radio shock jock, like limbaugh and his ilk. We give these bastards way too much attention. I'd wager that not one athlete on this basketball team ever listened to Imus, or probably ever even heard of his sorry ass trying to make a tasteless bad joke.

Hetep and Respect Aunk.

do you think Imus would claim that he "spoke the truth" about these girls in a court of law. Remember civil court has a low bar - the preponderance of the evidence is all that is needed.

The problem is that it is not what he said that is the problem, but where and when. This is a great opportunity to make an example of him, but if they go to far, like trying to sue and failing, then they will prove that they are "Nappy Headed Ho's" and the label might stick.

Yes I do, and I would be careful not to fall into some cunning trap. After I made this comment I checked some news sources and I happened to see a Fox segment called Haimity or something. They had got some poor black guy caged up there and they were pushing his buttons at will. I felt embarrassed for you, that, the debate was being manipulated by the right with such ease. Be careful this does not backfire Aunk, Hetep

It is a valid question, but once again I must fall back on liberty. If someone wants to make money by badmouthing others, they should be allowed to do it. It doesn't make it right but it is still part of freedom.

So I guess that answers your second question, as I believe in the sale of most anything :)

Based on my research, anyone can attempt to sue for anything.

If the court decides to hear the case, however, that still does not prove that the plaintiffs' have a viable suit.

From a legal perspective, it's unlikely that the team has a legitimate libel suit. Even if they did, it is not likely they would win.

Here's why:

Imus did not identify each girl on the team by name. Therefore, because each women effected is not personally identifiable, no harm has been done that could realistically derail their individual careers.

In addition, even if a lawsuit were viable, the fact that Imus has been publicly humiliated as well as fired, would likely diffuse the suit.

Here are abbreviated legal definitions of defamation, slander and libel:

DEFAMATION - An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are defamation.

Slander: A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience.

H&R Aunk; Well I am not a US citizen but I know in the Commonwealth you would have to prove intent. And, there was definitely no intent.

Ah well I am Australian so the Only US news I get is a late ABC.

Retract comment

And, there was definitely no intent.

it appears that there could be malice

Unfortunately, Mr. Stanert's contention that because the women of the basketball team were not named individually by Messrs. Imus and McGuirk that there is no harm, is not necessarily true. These women are individually identified as the members of the 2006-07 Rutgers Women's basketball team, a specific and unquely identifiable group of 10 women, their coaches and support staff. Imus' comments were specific to them as a team and thus he can be held accountable.

The fact that Imus was fired for his actions does not diffuse the suit. As the team would be suing for damages they suffered and seeking some court-ordered remedy for said damages, it is possible that Imus (personally), McGuirk (personally) NBC Universal or its parent company GE, WFAN, Westwood One, CBS Radio and its parent Viacom might all come under the umbrella of those who could be held responsible.

Finally, libel -- which refers to comments made in print -- would not apply, although slander (which is verbal) would. Unfortunately, because of the structure of American law, both libel and slander cases are much more difficult to win here, rather than say the United Kingdom.

With regard to I SPY, because you are far removed from the controversy and only get your news from ABC -- which those of us in the States should might have confused with our American Broadcasting Company instead of your Australian Broadcasting Company -- you are at a distinct disadvantage in this conversation, especially without doing the necessary research to fill in your knowledge gap.

Emotional distress is not an easy win. It's possible that negligent intent could be at issue rather than malice. Still proof of damage is needed.

From an objective perspective, it's not a cut and dried issue. Winning is possible, but iffy.

The mitigating circumstances that the defense will likely raise are: The statement was not made repeatedly, that Imus was fired, that Imus is a known shock jock, that he apologized, and he did not individually identify the players on air.

Below I have included some examples, but, depending on the state, you may find a few that contradict these examples.

Don't shoot the messenger.

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS - 'Damages for emotional distress have been permitted only where there is some means for assuring the validity of the claim. (Molien, supra, 27 Cal.3d at 926-27.) The case law reveals a diversity of circumstances in which recovery for emotional distress may be had. They are loosely linked in the sense that in each it could be said that a particular form of mental suffering naturally ensued from the acts constituting the invasion of another kind of protected interest. 'The commonest example . . . is probably where the plaintiff suffers personal injuries in addition to mental distress as a result of negligent or intentional misconduct by the defendant.' (Crisci, supra, 66 Cal.2d at 433.) Pain and suffering is the natural concomitant of a personal injury. (Capelouto v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, supra, 7 Cal.3d 889 [infant's pain and suffering incident to contagious illness].) '[I]n the case of many torts, such as assault, battery, false imprisonment, and defamation, mental suffering will frequently constitute the principal element of damages.' (State Rubbish, etc. Assn. v. Siliznoff, supra, 38 Cal.2d at 338; see also Deevy v. Tassi, supra, 21 Cal.2d 109 [assault and battery].) Molien, supra, 27 Cal.3d 916, found sufficient assurance of the validity of a claim of emotional distress in the nature of the cause of action for negligent misdiagnosis, predicated as it was upon a false imputation of syphilis, which by statute constitutes slander per se, an intentional tort. (Id., at pp. 930-31.)

In torts involving extreme and outrageous intentional invasions of mental and emotional tranquility, the outrageous conduct affords the necessary assurance of the validity of the claim. (Id. at 927.) Recovery also has been sanctioned for emotional distress which could be said naturally to ensue from an act which invaded an interest protected by an established tort. (See, Sloane v. Southern Cal. Ry. Co., supra, 111 Cal. 668 [humiliation from wrongful ejection from train]; State Rubbish, etc. Assoc. v. Siliznoff, supra, 38 Cal.2d 330 [intentional infliction of emotional distress]; Crisci v. Security Ins. Co., supra, 66 Cal.2d 425 [physical injuries and psychosis resulting from fall through opening]; see also Acadia, California, Ltd. v. Herbert (1960) 54 Cal.2d 328, 337 [mental suffering occasioned for fear for safety of family caused by trespass]; Kornoff v. Kingsburg Cotton Oil Co. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 265, 271 [discomfort and annoyance caused by nuisance]; Herzog v. Grosso (1953) 41 Cal.2d 219, 225 [annoyance ensuing from trespass].)' (Merenda v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1, 8-9 [no emotional distress damages for negligent legal malpractice]; see also discussion of limitations on emotional distress damages in Branch v. Homefed Bank (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 793, 800.)

Not all mental anguish is compensable: '[E]motional distress is but 'part of the human condition.' Fuentes v. Perez (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 163, 169. Loss by anyone of property or money, and certainly loss of expected wages, will normally produce mental anguish. 'Complete emotional tranquillity is seldom attainable in this world . . .' (6 Cal.App.4th at 801.)

A clarification of libel and slander as it applies to the media. It includes a link to the government page "Libel Law in the United States" as well as excerpts from the page.

An excerpt regarding libel

Today the legal differences between libel and slander have all but disappeared due largely to the dawning of the electronic age. American television networks, for example, are sometimes sued for libel even though news reporters and correspondents "speak" their words to a viewing and listening audience rather than to a reading audience.

An excerpt regarding a similar case.

Excerpt:

More recently, Jerry Falwell, an American religious leader, sued a magazine after it published a biting satire of Falwell that mocked his piety. Indeed, a state of Virginia jury awarded Falwell $200,000 after concluding that the magazine had inflicted "emotional distress" on the well-known clergyman. But the U.S. Supreme Court later threw out the award by explaining that satire, no matter how scathing and upsetting to its target, was protected by the First Amendment.

Also are these women claiming they are celebrity athletes whose careers have been ruined?

If so, under the "Sullivan rule" they then have to prove malicious intent not just negligent intent. Negligent intent can be raised by private individuals while celebrities need to prove malice.

A skillful defense attorney, along with pointing out that majority of the public would not easily recognize any of the players by either name or face, will also empahsize that Imus casually expressed a stupid and ignorant opinion. He did not claim to be making a factual claim, backed by any credible source to support his ridiculous opinionated remark that the women players were "hos".

Opinions are protected by Constitutional rights to free speech.

exceprt

Besides making distinctions between public and private figures, American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling.

In addition, if a media libel suit is won in a lower court it is often reversed in a higher court.:

Floyd Abrams, a New York lawyer who specializes in representing media organizations, estimates that individuals who sue for libel win about 75 percent of the cases that end up before a jury. But the media succeed in reversing jury verdicts most of the time after they appeal to higher courts. Abrams says the reason is that jurors often do not fully understand or apply the proper legal standards that cover libel cases. As a result, it is common for media organizations to carry libel cases to intermediate appellate courts if they lose at the first stage of a trial.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm

Jackson and Sharpton assumed that the Duke players were guilty because they were white.

Cleareyes... The number one person who hounded the heck out of this story, including calling them all guilty of gang rape, was NANCY GRACE of Court TV and CNN Headline News. What do you have to say to her? Is she racist?

Well after searching through thousands of articles titled "Will Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson Apologize????," I did find this that Jackson wrote after the accusations. But I'll keep looking. Article

Cleareyes... The number one person who hounded the heck out of this story, including calling them all guilty of gang rape, was NANCY GRACE of Court TV and CNN Headline News. What do you have to say to her? Is she racist?

Really I don't think anyone should apologize. Let the people listening to them judge them on their comments. I like our media to be free and then let demand take it from there. But if you are going to be calling for the heads of some people who make offensive comments, then I think its only fair to call for all their heads.

But what is your suggestion for how we improve the linguistic Cultural Health of Team America going forward.

For starters, we need to stop punishing/attacking people for saying what they think. Why? Because it creates an elephant in the room. Unless people say what they think no meaningful discussion can take place. Some people in this country would like to pretend that if they don't hear it, it doesn't exist, but that's just not true.

When someone says something that offends me, I stop and ask myself why it offends me. 99% of the time I discover there is some truth in what they are saying and the reason I'm offended is that I don't want to deal with it. Until others in this country are willing to do the same nothing will change.

Aunk (The Cultural Health Guy): Usually it is the person who committed the crime that does the time, not the messengers.

I'm torn on this, personally.

I agree, the messenger should not be considered complicit with the crime he's reporting.

Then again, what we have today aren't just messengers. Over the decades they have backslid considerably. Once we had an army of fairly responsible, balanced news reporting organizations, and we could believe that if the truth was out there, someone would fund it.

But what we have now are an army of spin and scandal machines, cranking out fluff stories about the missing blond girl du jour and the latest celebrity apology. The fluff is non-nutritive, but everybody comes running for that sweet sweet taste of schadenfreude, and that makes the copious blocks of time set aside for advertising worth that much more. Where there once was a minor indiscretion has been inflated to full-blown scandal proportion, and rest assured there are people profiting from the manufactured scandal. It's just not Imus.

The trick has become separating the ones telling the story from the ones selling eyeballs.

The other trick, for Cultural Health, will be finding a way to get people to kick the junk news habit.

The girls would have never even heard the comment unless they turned on the news and heard about the issue.

What a silly statement. This is not about whether the targets of Imus heard his comments or not. MILLIONS of people did. On both nationally syndicated radio and national television. How convenient to not only blame the messenger, but blame the target. With thanks to the National Association of Black Journalists. Media Matters for America, the National Organization of Women, NAACP, Hispanic and Latino groups, the incident and a corresponding call for action took place.

No one blamed the target. If you weren't so blinded by anger, you could understand that. I simply meant to imply that any shame they may have felt was amplified by the media. Imus is a fogey who should have retired years ago. That said, he's no racist - he's just an idiot. If I could sue for idiocy, I'd be the richest man on Earth right now.

An idiot you dismiss, a racist is a psychologically deranged, potentially dangerous individual, who's contact with normal human beings should be limited and monitored...

Well in that case, let's just give him the death penalty. No sense in letting him live. Considering you believe racism is a white-only issue, why not just have them all whacked and after that we'll all live peacefully, right?

Aunk: An idiot you dismiss, a racist is a psychologically deranged, potentially dangerous individual, who's contact with normal human beings should be limited and monitored

I'm sorry, but I need to chime in here too.

Racism and misogyny are neither pathology nor illness. They're prejudices. They're the belief that one division of society is inherently more worthy or superior to another. There is nothing there that can be cured by chemical or organic treatment. The only therapy that's likely to work is the kind that can strike at and nullify that belief system. If it's any consolation, said procedure does tend to get highly invasive.

Now, it's possible that someone with a leg already dangling in the deep end might seize upon his prejudices as a convenient excuse to go stark raving banana-nose on some ethnicity or gender, or people who hold other belief systems. If those don't provide sufficient mental ammunition, there's always videogames, people rooting against their sports team, or people who use their cellphones while driving...

...okay, I may be going a little far afield here. The point is that the two are separate and distinct, though the combination is all but guaranteed to be bad.

Excellent article. We need to learn how to have dialogue on these issues for all of us to move forward. If we are unable to have the dialogue, cultural health is not possible.

The notion of the basketball team suing. There is a possibility that they would lose and that would be a shame. The girls are student athletes and probably want to go back to leading normal lives.

This would be one of the most publicized court battles in history and it would take months to resolve. Do you think that's what they want?

A lot of people seem to think they know what these girls want, has anybody asked them?

I would be willing to bet my left nut that there has been at least one, if not several solicitors to come a-calling. Everyone involved, from CBS to MSNBC, from Imus to Rutgers University to the women's basketball team to the entire Rutger's athletic dept. is freshly "lawyered up".

Sure it does... if they choose to go that route. A lawsuit is not dependent upon whether or not the plaintiff has received an apology from the respondent.