N/S Fine's wife sues ESPN for libel (1 Viewer)

[ironhead]

Hopefully this won't be the only libel suit ESPN is hit with this year. (Make it happen Loomis):

Wife of former Syracuse coach plans to sue ESPN for libel - CNN.com

 

[BIGRON]

Hopefully this won't be the only libel suit ESPN is hit with this year. (Make it happen Loomis):

Loomis need to make Drew's contract happen before anything else.

 

[Mackenzie]

Sounds like Loomis' case would be more open and shut than this one would be.

 

[ironhead]

Loomis need to make Drew's contract happen before anything else.

Agreed, unfortunately Loomis will have 8 weeks of nothing to do but to sue ESPN

 

[GoldRush26]

Not much to see here. The burden of proof in libel cases is substantial. Essentially she has to prove the ESPN knew that what they were reporting was false and they decided to run with it anyway, which will be difficult to say the least.

 

[THENZA]

Not much to see here. The burden of proof in libel cases is substantial. Essentially she has to prove the ESPN knew that what they were reporting was false and they decided to run with it anyway, which will be difficult to say the least.

Word.
This is what I keep telling a friend of mine about the Loomis story.
It's not enough to prove that the story was false.
You also have to prove that the reporter knew it was false.
Even if the reporter might have known it was false, he can just say he didn't.
That's a heavy burden of proof.

 

[saint_drago]

Agreed, fortunately Loomis will have 8 weeks of nothing to do but to sue ESPN

fify

 

[Eman5805]

Whose wife was it that was pretty much admitting to funny stuff going on with her husband and some guy? I coulda sword they played a recorded conversation and it was Fine.

Was it taken out of context or something? Quote mining?

 

[Sumdude34]

Word.
This is what I keep telling a friend of mine about the Loomis story.
It's not enough to prove that the story was false.
You also have to prove that the reporter knew it was false.
Even if the reporter might have known it was false, he can just say he didn't.
That's a heavy burden of proof.

Can they bring up a " they should have made sure it was 100% true" angle or would the reporter not be held accountable for that? It would make sence that they be held accountable for the process of gathering the info.

 

[bayouflare]

Don't they have to prove an intent to harm (malice)

 

[mob504]

Don't they have to prove an intent to harm (malice)

Assuming the plaintiff is/was a public official or public figure:

To prevail in a defamation action, P must show the defendant published information they had actual knowledge was false, or published with reckless disregard for the truth of the statements therein. Mere negligence in fact checking will not suffice to prove actual malice.

See New York Times v. Sullivan; Curtis Publishing v. Butts.

 

[GoldRush26]

Can they bring up a " they should have made sure it was 100% true" angle or would the reporter not be held accountable for that? It would make sence that they be held accountable for the process of gathering the info.

Negligence won't prove libel.

 

[efil4stnias]

Negligence won't prove libel.

no it wont.

but negligence is just that...negligence. And now you bear a whole different set of issues.

So it will be interesting to see, if Loomis does sue, what angle they will play.

 

[mob504]

no it wont.

but negligence is just that...negligence. And now you bear a whole different set of issues.

So it will be interesting to see, if Loomis does sue, what angle they will play.

Maybe, but the harm alleged is the same - libel. Negligence vs. recklessness merely goes to mental culpability. It must be connected to some harm- in this case libel. I'm not sure what you see as a separate "angle." If the harm is libel and the only showing of culpability is that of negligence, then the defendant prevails.

 

[InSaintity]

To prove libel for a private individual, which Mrs. Fine probably would be, the plaintiff must prove the statement was all of the following:
-untrue
-caused actual harm
-was published negligently

Negligence is an interesting standard in libel law. Did ESPN contact Mrs. Fine and others to defend the allegation? For instance, if somebody's co-worker claimed their manager was molesting kids and a reporter just printed that without trying to verify facts, that's negligence.

One way ESPN can defeat the case is to say the statements published were part of a lawsuit or other legal ir police proceeding, and that is privileged information not subject to libel laws. So even if court testimony is untrue--somebody lies for instance--the publication of the testimony is not subject to libel laws.