One of the Rutgers basketball players is suing Don Imus

[CatWoman]

I don't necessarily think this is a good idea.

On the one hand, his comments were disgusting. He didn't even know those young ladies, their talents, their accomplishments, their hopes, their dreams, their being period.

Yet I'm afraid this may get really ugly, and open the floodgates.

I don't know. What do you think?

[terisan]

1. Even though they were in the news as winners, I think they should be considered private citizens

rather than public figures who can't sue if they are ridiculed.

What if Imus had said the same about a high school or middle school team?

[MADem]

11. What, because they're 'nice' or what? You can't take back your

public persona, especially when you've appeared on Oprah, made the media rounds, just because someone was unfairly mean to you.

The hypothetical high school or middle school team wasn't national champions. But if they were, like the Little League team with the ringer pitcher, they'd get the full scrutiny, too.

I don't buy the private citizen argument you're putting forth at all. It's not a matter of the person being nice, or not deserving the treatment they got. As for Imus "stealing their moment"--in the end, his insult backfired, and they got more "moment" as a team than they ever would have gotten otherwise.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a little settlement, with all of them. But if this player takes it all the way, she might lose. Or get a settlement big enough to pay her attorney and her carfare.

[terisan]

20. No because I think they can qualify as private citizens and because I think Imus broke FCC regs.

If I won Volunteer of the Year award and Limbaugh got on the air and said I was a whore I think would be entitled to sue, even though the award had been publicized.

Airwaves are considered to be owned by the public (not everyone realizes this nowadays due to how corrupted the government has become). We own and we award licenses to operate. FCC can fine licensees or yank licenses for not adhering to rules. Imus broke the rules and his bosses got scared. They make a ton of money for themselves off of our property and we get practically nothing in return.

If the local Little League made it to the national finals and won, am I entitled to get on the airwaves-which I co-own-and state to millions of people that they are a bunch of mother pimpers? Gee, that would be great fun, wouldn't it?

[MADem]

24. When you do interviews, go on Oprah, and make yourself available to media, you are NOT a private

person.

We're not talking about a one-off, here.

And if he broke FCC regs, he's been breaking them for years. He also needs to line up behind Dildo Really, Limbaugh, and so on. They pull the same shit.

Airwaves are essentiallly rented out (licensed) by our government. You can say you OWN a house, but if you rent it out, those tenants have rights. You can't move in with your tenants, and tell them what to cook for dinner. Those corporations compensate the government for that bandwidth. If you don't think it's enough money, well, that's one thing, but our government rented out those airwaves, so they aren't "ours" for as long as someone else is holding the lease.

You wanna evict the tenants, go ahead. You think that's gonna happen? I don't, not just because it wasn't merited, but because you don't bite the hand that feeds you. That program was simulcast on NBC, which is owned by GE, one of the largest Pentagon contractors--billions...

You really think the Gubmint is gonna screw that relationship? Please.

You could go on the air with your mother pimper comment. And you could get fired. And that would be that. No license would be lost as a consequence.

Imus broke the rules every day for years. And WAY worse than what you heard about the Rutgers team. Each and every day. What changed was he started speaking out vociferously against the war. And GE didn't like that, so they pulled the plug.

So long as Imus was prowar, he could say or do ANYTHING. And he did. The minute he started criticizing BushCo, they laid in wait, because they knew it would only be a matter of time.

GE, we bring good wars to life.

[terisan]

26. So if I kill people for years, I should continue to get away with it? And if Limbaugh

does something evil or gross it is ok for Faux Cowboy Imus to do it too ?

And I should not stand up for my rights because the big bad government would not let me have them anyway? If women listened to that argument last century I guess we would still not have the right to vote.

I was in NY when Don Imus rode in his relentlessly self-promoting, anti-female dog and pony show. I thought he was a jackass then and still have roughly the same opinion. How about those asinine photos of him in his drag outfit posing with the topless women?

Yes he turned against Bush but long after he had promoted his election/selection in 2000. He has been a latecomer to the anti-Bush party.

Bush, Imus, Limbaugh----what are the real differences among the three? Three former? drug addicts who specialize in divide-and-conquer, three bullies who particularly like to make fun of women?

Similarities-- geniuses at getting followers to care more about them than the followers care about themselves.. Bush-bots, Imus-worshippers, and Limbaugh ditto-heads.

[MADem]

31. What a shitty analogy. Obscene, really. Imus wasn't "killing" anyone.

If that were the case, he'd be jailed. He exercised his First Amendment rights. The station exercised their discretion and fired him, though they ended up having to pay him because they contracted with him to behave and speak outrageously. There were consequences to his exercising of his free speech perogatives. And there were consequences for his employers, too.

Bush has already crapped on our freedom from surveillance. Now you want to help him along by mandating what people are allowed to say? Or not say? How very jackbooted of you.

Don't you see how 'authoritarian' you're sounding? This is YOUR pet peeve, so you want to shut everyone up who doesn't agree with you. Well, you be VERY careful what you wish for. Times change, ya know. As the ACLU will tell you, you have to defend the right of the person saying the ugly things, because one day, a preponderance of the population might think YOU'RE the one who is saying those ugly things, and needs to be "silenced."

So get out that duct tape...

Incredible, how totalitarian the views are on this "progressive" board sometimes.

[Bake]

53. The two could not be more unrelated!

Go read NY Times v. Sullivan.

Whether Imus broke FCC regs (which is debateable) has absolutely nothing to do with whether the plaintiff is a public figure.

On top of that, this complaint won't withstand a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, because what Imus said is not actionable. Offensive, yes. Actionable, I seriously doubt it.

Bake

[dsc]

61. You probably have a point on the larger issue

but Oprah and all that occurred after Imus said what he said, not before.

[MADem]

62. And so did the announcement that they formally accepted his apology.

I mean, what? You accept an apology, and then come back many months later and say "Oh, but I want some CASH, too?" That's pretty lame, IMO. And that apology was pretty clear.

Is this player now going to say Coach Stringer didn't speak for her? Why didn't she pipe up then, and say "Whoa, there Coachie!! Include ME outta that WE bullshit you are shopping, there!!!"

See these stories: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041300884.html

Rutgers Team Accepts Imus's Apology

By Bill Brubaker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 13, 2007; 6:10 PM

Rutgers University's women's basketball players have accepted an apology from fired radio talk show host Don Imus, who called them "nappy-headed hos" last week, the team's coach announced today.

At a meeting with the team last night, hours after his nationally syndicated show was dropped by CBS Radio, Imus was "expressive" and "remorseful," coach C. Vivian Stringer told reporters at a brief news conference.

"He expressed his apology. We accepted his apology," Stringer said of the meeting, which was also attended by players' parents, university administrators and a minister.....At no time did Rutgers University's women's basketball team ask for his job," Stringer said. "And it was sad news for anyone to lose their job. And I do mean anyone to lose their job."

Stringer said Imus should be given "credit" for meeting with the team on the day he was fired by CBS, and she urged the news media to cut him some slack.

"Let this man have some level of integrity," Stringer said. "Let him grow. Let us all learn from this."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/13/national/main2679537.shtml


Rutgers Team Accepts Imus' Apology
Players Hope Incident Will Be "Catalyst For Change" For "Greater Ills In Our Culture"


(CBS/AP) The Rutgers women's basketball team accepted radio host Don Imus' apology Friday for insulting them on the air, saying that he deserves a chance to move on, but that they hope the furor his word caused will be a catalyst for change.

"We, the Rutgers University Scarlet Knight basketball team, accept — accept — Mr. Imus' apology, and we are in the process of forgiving," coach C. Vivian Stringer read from a team statement a day after the team met personally with Imus and his wife.

"We still find his statements to be unacceptable, and this is an experience that we will never forget," the statement read.

"These comments are indicative of greater ills in our culture. It is not just Mr. Imus, and we hope that this will be and serve as a catalyst for change. Let us continue to work hard together to make this world a better place."

[partylessinOhio]

2. Very bad idea, IMO. Don Imus is an act. What he does is schtick.(sp?)

He apologized. He lost his job. He was taken off the air.

Enough is enough.

Move on girls. This gotcha destruction has to stop.

:thumbsdown:

[Kagemusha]

4. And he's now being put back on the air.

To resume where he left off.

Not that I think a lawsuit against him has any chance.

[MADem]

12. WABC denies that they're in talks with him, FWIW.

I think Sirius would be a better fit for him. Problem is, though, I can't imagine which politician would have the guts to go on his show, and in his old age, that is a HUGE piece of his schtick, the political interviews. Unless he reformats in the way that I think he should, which is retool the show to feature WANDA SIKES as his co-host. She's smart, she's funny as hell, and she doesn't take shit from anyone. She could kick his ass any time he got all "ethnic" and make some good 'old man/flaccid tool' jokes, too, which just might serve him right. He can, in his twilight years, feel the public pinch of the shoe on the other foot, while getting some good ratings.

In that situation, with an 'ethnic guardian,' he'd probably get the politicians to come back. And if he went on pay radio, anyone who didn't like what he said could go Cheney him or herself.

Funny, he was the only radio voice with any kind of massive audience that spoke out against the war. And he'd tossed insults as bad, even worse, without anyone noticing in the past, back when he was for the war--funny how that worked.

They shut him up but good!

[terisan]

27. Yah let's bring back Amos and Andy-or how about Al Jolson in blackface. Those were the good old days

Girls.......imagine thinking they might have the same rights as MEN (except of course, boy will be boys).

[MADem]

33. No, let's go along with your blackshirted plan, and censor everyone who isn't PC!

Who needs that shitty First Amendment? 'terisan' is going to be the Minister of Speakology, and tell us all what's "acceptable" to say, and what isn't. So grab your Constitution, tear off that First Amendment, and oh, wipe your ass with it--'terisan' says we don't need it anymore!!

No more 'uncomfortable' words or phrases!!! Nothing OFFENSIVE, ever!!! Everyone, line up and get in Happy Happy Glad Glad lockstep! The ACLU may as well go home, 'terisan' is ON THE CASE!

Don't you see how rightwing you sound? Let's pretend the subject isn't Imus and his Ho comments, but instead, "Criticizing Jesus or George Bush." Because with your attitude about the rights of Americans, it could be that someday. And if you silence a person on one subject, you can just as easily be silenced as well. And your encouragement of the very act of silencing makes it EASIER for it to happen to YOU down the road.

The reason Amos and Andy don't clutter our airwaves is because the market doesn't desire them. They offend--but there's no ORDER mandating they not be shown. The corporations don't show shit that people don't want to see. The name of the game is ratings. So again, your example is just a lousy one.

You're so left, you're right--FAR right. Not right as in correct. Because you're dead wrong.

If you don't like what Imus, or Limbaugh, or ANYONE has to say, here's what you do--you pick up the remote and push the OFF button. You grab the dial and turn it. You write to the corporation and tell them they aren't going to get your custom. You do what you have to do in order to not listen to things that upset you. But you don't mandate that because something bugs you, that others have no right to hear it, or say it--even if it bothers you.

That's O'Reilly-esque, that attitude. And it's wrong.

[terisan]

37. ..and i bet you have considered yourself a liberal......let's start with your turn the dial comment.

"If you don't like what Imus, or Limbaugh, or ANYONE has to say, here's what you do--you pick up the remote and push the OFF button. You grab the dial and turn it'.

So I, and millions of other Americans, don't have the right to some programming that respects women or appeals to our political views. If I want to listen to a strong-signal radio station I get to choose between the Limbaughs, the Boortzes, the Imuses and the rest of the deliberately irrational multi-millionaire talk show hosts.
denigrate women and fight against the rights of most of the people in our country---or turn off my radio. That is a choice????? That is freedom????? That is my free speech rights?????? ....or I suppose I could call in to their controlled programs and have them cut the mics---yeah free speech is only for them....or I can switch to the female-hating religious nuts.

You are so wrong about Amos 'n Andy. The reason they went off the air is that hundreds of thousands of African Americans stood up and said "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more," They fought back...and white people said, "Hey, it's only a show, it's funny, what's the matter-can't take a joke?" But they kept fighting and when people finally saw they weren't going to take anymore crap, the show disappeared.

Would you tell them now to just not listen to show like Amos 'n Andy that might upset them ? If not why are you telling Me this crap.

These airwaves belong to all of us-- sure we must let the minority-hater and the women-haters have their first amendment rights. What they are not necessarily entitled to is the prime radio, strong signal airwaves to spew their KKK-level the rest of us. Prime real estate, that is what CBS has in NY.

If you think Don Imus is a liberal because he finally stopped being a Bush-supporter and enabler you are wrong. If you think his freedom of speech is more important than millions of the rest of us, I believe you are wrong.

We are in our current political, economic and social mess because 5 Supreme Court Justices decided that the rights of candidate George W. Bush were more important than the rights of millions of voter. (He would be harmed if they recounted the votes and found he had lost). They were wrong. ....We did not stand up in sufficient numbers in 2000 to say "I am mad as hell, and I am not putting up with this crap and so we got almost a decade now of more crap.

What we have on prime time radio now is crap. It is not freedom of speech.

[qdemn7]

41. Programming that respects women???

I see you complaining about Imus, et. al., have you ever listened to Howard Stern when he was still on broadcast? Did he act like some paragon of feminist virtue? I don't see you complaining about hin.

[MADem]

44. No, you don't have the "right" to anything, just because you WANT it

I'd like a million dollars, but that's not going to happen just because I think I'm entitled to it.

Look, you want good programming, STOP LISTENING to the lousy stuff. Write to the producers and make your wishes known. Patronize stations that support your views and provide programming you like. Actively tout the shows you enjoy. Let the sponsors know that you patronize them because you heard them on whatever show you happened to like. Tune in all the time, be faithful to the programming you enjoy--if it is really that important to you. No one, like it or not, is going to provide you with programming on a silver platter, when you want it, just because you want it. Without critical mass, you'll never get the programming you want. You've got to seek it out, even if you have to go to Sirius or XM, or listen over the net, and patronize it, and support it. IF it's that important to you.

When programming perturbs me, I put my money where my mouth is. For example, because I despise it, I don't watch Faux. At all. Not even for a second. I see so many people complaining here about it, while giving a play by play of what they see on it with an excuse that they "need to know what the enemy is thinking." I don't watch them, their ads, ever. I don't need to know what morons think. I already know--they DON'T think. I don't give them a moment of my attention. Their advertisers do not reach me. At all.

Where EVER did I say Don Imus was a liberal? Answer: I DIDN'T. Stop INFERRING. That's a very bad trait. He IS anti-war. What, you think only "liberals" are allowed to be antiwar? Think again, because that's simply not true. There ARE conservatives who are antiwar. Pat Buchanan, who is a conservative, protectionist, isolationist, is one. Ron Paul is another.

Again, what is on prime time radio is a combination of shit the corporate interests are willing to fund, and what the traffic will bear. If you don't like that crap, TURN IT OFF. Don't contribute to the problem, if that's what you regard it as, by PARTICIPATING in the perpetration of it. You're jumping in the pool, and crying because you're wet. That's your fault.

I am NOT wrong about Amos and Andy. I'm not. People didn't like the show (and not just "Negroes" as they were called back then, but those sensitive to race issues, AND corporate sponsors as well) and that's why it died. The latter reason, disgraceful but true, was that sponsors didn't want their products "Negrofied." Don't believe me? I have a link:

Moreover, the denunciation of Amos 'n Andy was not universal. With its good writing and talented cast, the show was good comedy, and soon became a commercial success. The reaction of the black community over this well produced and very funny program remained divided. Even the Pittsburgh Courier, one of the black community's most influential publications, which had earlier led in the protest against the motion picture Gone With the Wind, defended the show in an article appearing in June 1951.

In 1953, CBS reluctantly removed the program from the air, but not solely because of the efforts of the NAACP. As mentioned, the period featured a swiftly changing climate for race relations in the United States. Consideration for the southern market was of great concern to major advertisers. In an era when African Americans were becoming increasingly vocal in the fight against racial discrimination, large advertisers were reluctant to have their products too closely associated with black people. Fear of White economic backlash was of special concern to advertisers and television producers. The idea of "organized consumer resistance" caused advertisers and television executives to avoid appearing pro-Negro rights. One advertising agency executive, referring to blacks on television, noted in Variety, "the word has gone out, 'No Negro performers allowed.'"

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/A/htmlA/amosnandy/amosnandy.htm

[BoneDaddy]

46. Well said

I am so tired of this "I don't like it...therefore" or "I am so offended...therefore". Many so called libs can be just as controlling, fascistic and authoritarian as the right wing nut jobs. Instead of a religious, white male agenda, they have their own power grab couched in PC bull.

[mondo joe]

70. It's not Imus's freedom of speech vs millions of others. It's just free speech.

He's entitled to it the same way you are. You are entitled to it the same way he is.

[CatWoman]

47. huh?

why in the world did you go "there"? :shrug:

[Kingshakabobo]

3. Doesn't have much merit.

I don't think insults are actionable. I suppose calling someone a "whore" MIGHT be actionable but it would have to pass the "reasonable man" test. In other words, would a reasonable man believe he REALLY meant to imply she walks the streets for money - not caring if it's wrong or if it's right?

Maybe she can get a settlement from those freshly filled deep pockets.

[Raine]

5. Seems like this could have repercussions

on free speech...a slippery slope. You can't just sue someone cause you don't like what they said. They're going to have to prove that this caused them some sort of damage...monetary or mental...anyway I would think so. I think they would be better off suing CBS since they encouraged him to be outrageous and controversial.

[MADem]

6. I think it's a wash. She'll get a payday, and CBS will do the paying.

I think any good lawyer, like I'll imagine Imus hired, would point to the former boss and claim their client was just doing what he was told to do--be a shock jock and drive up the ratings.

Imus wasn't hired for his gravitas and weighty, considered program. He was hired for a mix of outrage and (sometimes shockingly honest) politics.

She'll settle. If she goes to court, she risks losing. AND spending a bundle on legal fees.

And like I said, CBS -- and maybe NBC too -- will do the paying.

[Bake]

54. She has no case.

I'll be amazed if it get past a motion to dismiss. I'd make her litigate the thing. I'll bet a month's pay that her lawyer is just trolling for a quick settlement and hasn't got the stomach to litigate it. Settle? Imus shouldn't.

Bake

[MADem]

58. On the face of it, I agree with you.

And you're probably right about the ambulance chasing lawyer, too.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if someone in this mess (either the Imus team, or Imus requiring that the CBS team do it as part of HIS settlement) got the whole lot of them together, provided them with a "Go and Sin No More" sum of money, and perhaps proscribed them from continuing to flog the matter in public. It might not be a bad inoculation strategy, espcially if Imus is planning on returning to the air.

I do concur that if he chose to fight it, he'd win. The remark wasn't directed specifically at the plaintiff. The guy has apologized a dozen times in a variety of venues. His career has been eradicated. At what point is enough, enough?

[tularetom]

7. I think she oughta forget it

From what I heard on Countdown Imus although he got paid a bundle from CBS in a settlement over his firing, is not going to be back on the air anytime soon. Best that he just disappear from public view and the sooner the better. A lawsuit would just keep this fuckin creep front and center and force us to have to keep talkin about him. Fuck him let him go off to his fake ranch and croak.

[Ninga]

8. He didn't single anyone out by name, but just slurred and insulted the whole team.

I don't know if that makes a difference.

I thought he met with the whole team a week or so after he was fired, and they "accepted his apology."

[LandOLincoln]

9. I think it's ridiculous. In fact, I thought the whole thing was ridiculous.

Who cares what that sour old misanthrope has to say about anything?

The Rutgers team should have considered the source and snickered, instead of all the overblown drama and theatrics.

And now this? this strikes me as a very cynical attempt to exploit her alleged victimhood, or rather a cynical attempt by her lawyer to exploit her alleged victimhood.

Whichever it is, I think it's a very bad move.

[terisan]

22. CBS, a for-profit mega corporation can say whatever untruth they want and citizens have no recourse?

[MADem]

25. CBS didn't say it. An entertainer hired by the CBS radio arm and the MSNBC cable network

made the remarks. Which weren't directed at this woman specifically.

If she'll settle for not too much dough, they'll probably pay her just to put this behind them, assuming everyone else in the group signs on and quits any future claims.

There's just not enough there for a book.

[terisan]

28. So CBS has no responsibility for its contractor's actions or statements? What about Wal-mart?

[MADem]

30. They took responsibility . They fired the guy. Whaddaya want?

You like the idea of the Thought Police standing over political commentators and talk show hosts with a gun, ready to shoot them if they say anything UN-PC--is that it? Is that what you want?

:eyes:

[terisan]

34. I want as much choice when I turn to the airwaves as the misogynists have.

We have domination of the airwaves now-by religious maniacs who like to tell women how to live and so-called political commentators who like to build their audiences of angry men by engaging in cheap shots at women.

The thought police have been in control for several decades. We have "politically-correct"-it's pro-sophomoric white male and anti-female. It's pro-war and anti-peace. It is soporific stupidity and anti-intelligence. It's massive propaganda massaging the minds and emotions of listeners who have stopped thinking for themselves and have confused bullying by millionaires with the right of free speech.

It governmental silencing of the voice of the people in favor of the broadcasting of hate, fear, nonsense, and sleeze to keep the easily-led listening and nodding their approval, and defending their own mental imprisonment.

[MADem]

35. Well, don't listen. There's no "fairness doctrine" and there isn't gonna be any.

It's a market driven and corporate interest game, now. You want what YOU want? You have to pay for it. You, and like minded people who agree with you, have to pool your resources and come up with a broadcast entity to your liking.

That's the way it is. That's life. Government is not going to accomodate every interest group. That horse has left the barn, like it or not. So you can want in one hand, and crap in the other, and all you will end up with is a handful of crap.

Government isn't "silencing the voice of the people." The people can motivate, shape, and push the market by TURNING OFF THE TEE VEE or the radio. You aren't a 'prisoner' of media. Unless you choose to be. You don't like it? You have a choice. You can listen/watch, or you can turn it OFF. If no one watches, or listens, they'll stop featuring it.

I'm not troubled by that shit that makes you so frantic, because I've figured out how to use that off button. You should do the same.

[terisan]

38. I am not frantic. I am simply not cowed.

[terisan]

40. BTW, thanks for the conversation. Have to catch some sleep now. nt

[mondo joe]

69. You can't sue because a producer doesn't put out a product you want.

This sort of suit is just acting out.

[emilyg]

10. Bad move.

[karlrschneider]

13. Most likely she was enticed to sue by some ambulance-chasing shyster.

Actually, I'm surprised Boosh hasn't sued a bunch of us DUers for calling him ...er, what we call him.
(I'm not, really...that was rhetorical, in case anybody failed to realize) :eyes:

[terisan]

21. I applaud women who stand up for themselves. As for Imus-a bad imitation of Midnight Cowboy, but

there's no law against making an ass of oneself.

[monarch]

14. It is elementary law that calling someone a whore

(imputing unchastity)is slander per se and assumed to be extremely harmful. The only thing the plaintiff has to establish is the amount of her damages. I say she should go for every cent she can get.

[Egalitariat]

15. Did he say she was a whore? Or that they "look like nappy headed ho's"?

That's two very different things. One is being passed off as "fact" while the other is clearly an opinion and can't be proved false.

[CatWoman]

16. I thought a "ho" was a "whore"

:shrug:

[Richard Steele]

19. Nope. There's a difference between using it as an insult, and claiming she's a prostitute.

Unless she can prove he was making a genuine attempt to convince
his listeners that she performs sexual acts for money, she's got
no case.

[monarch]

36. Would you like to provide some support for

your "legal" analysis? Without dragging out my Westlaw code and actually doing some legal research,I can find several cases that prove you wrong. Try this one http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLfiles/COA/3379.htm.

[Richard Steele]

42. I'm not qualified to provide a "Legal" opinion, but other DUer's are. DUers I know and trust.

I know I certainly can't express what I'm saying in
the type of precise "legalese" that that would pass
muster in a modern Court of Law, because I'm not a
trained professional Lawyer.

But we do have more than a few Lawyers among us here at DU;
and I happened to have briefly discussed this particular
issue with one of them a few months ago.

If you are truly interested in a REAL legal opinion of
the concept I expressed in that last post, I would suggest
that you PM our fellow DUer "Lex".

She can explain it better than I can, cite precedent for
the explanation, and she's got framed parchments on her walls
to back it all up.

My walls: 90% cobwebs and kitty pictures. Clearly, I'm not the
debatorial adversary you're looking for. I'm happy to point you
in the right direction though. :hi:

[The Vinyl Ripper]

17. I think getting ugly and opening the floodgates is what needs to happen..

There really needs to be a dialog in this country as to just what "freedom of speech" really is.

On the one hand you have "free speech zones" being set up at political rallies. On the other hand you have the SCOTUS saying that money=speech and on the gripping hand you have "people" (and I use the term advisedly) like Imus using "free speech" to unwarrantedly slander people who have done him no wrong at all simply to increase the rating of his show thereby increasing his income.

[Mr. Blonde]

18. This is going to end up costing her money

He libeled the group, not her. As such for her to win she has to prove she was the one the remarks were aimed at in the group. Going to be pretty hard to do.

[sandnsea]

23. If she can prove monetary damage

Then she should recoup. Especially based on his hiring of McGuirk to "tell n***** jokes". It was intentional and malicious, and bound to go over the top sooner or later. I think we have to be careful to differentiate this from just any nasty comment though, or we wouldn't be able to say anything about Bush!

[Lance_Boyle]

55. It doesn't have to be monetary, but

the question remains, "WHAT damage?" Is she less able to find a job? Less desirable to potential lovers? Less able to pursue a WNBA career? Has the comment caused provable harm to her mental health? I think this one will be dismissed before any settlement talks.

[flying_monkeys]

29. Well, he slimed the team, not an individual

so that might prevent her suit from having any standing....

Also, his lawyer could argue the semantics between "ho" and "whore" and possibly prevail...


She might also have some problems proving the monetary harm part....


In general, I think our country has become a tad suit-happy - - and for that reason, I almost wish this suit hadn't been brought. I don't think she has a slam-dunk case and instead, her case could be looked at as "chasing after money", kwim? NOT that what was said wasn't awful - - just that trying to get dollars later might be construed as chasing-dollars, and THAT won't do her or her reputation any good....


If *I* were advising her and she asked me for advice about whether to bring suit or not, I'd say can it, because she and the team emerged victorious and pristine and a suit might only dull those edges in retrospect....

[dysfunctional press]

she must have found out what kind of paycheck to expect in the wnba...

and needed to find a way to pay the rent and buy food.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[ruiner4u]

39. in times like this I just think...

People think about the nastiest part of themselves and hate themselves for it.. Like some lady who cant get a man and just collects cats.. her house is disgusting and she dosent have anything to show for her life except for dozens of cat pans... a women who forgets hygene yet has more cats then should be legally allowed..

I donno, sounds to be someone like that should really hate themselves... I know I would..

[KharmaTrain]

43. He Should Donate $1 Mil To Rutgers Womens Programs

Not just the basketball team...but either to be used in setting up woman's studies program or put the money into an endowment for minority women. This would show class...not that Anus ever had any.

[CatWoman]

48. KT

Now that's a good idea!! :thumbsup:

[KharmaTrain]

49. Thank You CatWoman

Too bad Anus is so vindictive and self-centered he won't do it.

The saving grace is it sounds like WABC is backing away from making him an offer so his exile may be longer than he expects.

:hi:

[BoneDaddy]

45. Ridiculous

This is the height of victimization in this country. It is cases like these that shadow legitimate, true victims' plights in the world. Being called a name does not entitle someone to a cash payout for having their feelings hurt.

[cd3dem]

50. Lacrosse Player Sues Duke

well if you can hire stripers and have a drinking party.... where you degrade women and make racial slurs about the fact that you got a Black striper instead of a White one...

and then you sue the University you were given a scholarship to because they did not stand by you when you are charged with rape...

and you sue the prosecutor because he called you hooligans and hurt your good name...


http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2835259

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2770931&page=1

if this is the f'd up world we live in..... where these losers get rich because they have high buck lawyers....




then...... I guess why shouldn't all these ladies sue the pants off Imus and his 20 million dollar severance pay.... f-Imus

[Lance_Boyle]

56. those guys suffered actual damages

to their reputations, and demonstrable harm by being kicked out of school. There is really no comparison here.

[Catchawave]

60. Agree n/t

[cd3dem]

63. what reputation should they have after hiring stripers?

the women were insulted because of the way they looked... dark skin, full features, and coarse hair... (not a Barbie doll) and they deserve nothing?

the boys were accused of rape, 20 years ago if a black striper claimed to be raped by rich white college kids, nothing would be done... now they get charged, and Duke gets sued... these boys don't deserve anything!!! they are in school to learn, not hire women to get naked!!! they should have thought about their reputation before they planned the party... they should have thought about their reputations before they made racial slurs on their computer...

they should have been kicked out of school for the party with stripers!

but boys will be boys!!! I guess we live in a world of double standards...

our country is in the shits!!!!

[LisaL]

65. Oh give me a break.

Hiring strippers is not illegal.
Having a party is not illegal.

[Lance_Boyle]

66. Nobody gets kicked out of school for hiring strippers.

Unless maybe that school is Bob Jones U., or possibly BYU. Hiring strippers is not illegal, nor is it immoral. I guess feigned outrage at socially acceptable behavior is the last refuge of the professionally offended.

[cd3dem]

73. what is moral?

my point is not about whether sexuality is moral or immoral, my point is how do we view women?

women who get into the sex trades do so most often because of past abuse.... and people look at the sex industry as a right.... college students on scholarship should be made to sign clauses that they will not participate in these types of parties... no excessive drinking, exploiting women, and making statements that are crude and racially degradating....

what does the school do while charges are made? if they are true, then we are outraged that they support rapists.. if they are false or dropped then we become outraged they are not supported... either way they take the chance at being sued....

we do not know the truth here... perhaps the woman was paid off to change her story? if she lied then she should be procecuted...

I have no pity for these guys...

I do have pity for the women who were slandered by Imus...

Imus makes money by slandering people, so why shouldn't they take some of that money?

we live in a world where even liberals think it is OK to call women "ho's" and exploit and use women.... no harm is done...

I will tell you this outraged me! I have seen the effects of gender discrimination.... I am out of work because my previous employer found out I was a feminist... actually had him ask me about it in my review... this type of thinking and speaking hurts all women... black-white-yellow-all shades of brown...

progressive thinking would say we need to help women in the sex trades find ways of supporting themselves in a respectful manner...

and we should not tolerate the type of comments from Imus and his kind.... sue the bastard and stop this type of crap!!!

[mondo joe]

68. Were their damages the result of hiring strippers? Or of the school acting inappropriately?

There's nothing illegal about hiring a stripper, or being one.

[ecstatic]

51. Might as well cash in, but

she will lose and be heavily criticized much like most African Americans who bring up somewhat frivolous lawsuits (think suit guy, 1-800-flowers guy, etc.).

[Catherine Vincent]

52. I think it should be dropped.

But if Imus gets a contract from some other outlet and is on the airwaves, I think he should be reminded of what he did everyday.

[NaturalHigh]

57. The next time someone makes a comment about my hair (or lack of)...

I'm going to sue! Hey, what's good for the goose...

[LisaL]

64. My guess the objection is the word "ho."

I fail to see how "nappy headed" can be considered slanderous.
It might be derogatory, but slanderous? I don't think so.

[Bake]

59. Nobody has the "right" not to be offended.

Ergo, not everything that is offensive is actionable.

This is one of those things that is offensive but not actionable.

Bake

[Hidden Stillness]

67. I Support Her

One of the reasons why the "public" (now, closed-corporate) atmosphere is now so totally poisoned and stupified is exactly because the U.S. no longer has any slander or libel laws to protect attacked victims. I remember when media used to pay a price for bad reporting or research, and for deliberate lies and attempts to destroy people's careers. As historically recently as the 1980s, Carol Burnett won a lawsuit against the National Enquirer for claiming she was out at a restaurant drunk and falling on the floor. Burnett's parents were both alcoholics, and she was outraged at the lie--she won the suit and gave the money away. People regularly used to win libel or slander suits when they could prove that it was false, and that it hurt their reputations; Britain still has good laws. I don't understand what the problem is, or why it is being equated with "victims" and " 'PC' " and "Thought Police" and all these other dumb-shit slogans that people use when they can't come up with a real argument.

There is no comparison between a "right to speak" or "right to hold an opinion," and on the other hand, keeping a paid job in the commercial world when you offend or intimidate fellow employees or customers/audience. This is now an organized, global/capitalist/Republican conspiracy, launching one slander/disinformation/destruction/distraction campaign after another, and no longer even relates to the idea of a lone individual giving an opinion in a free society. Those who are attacked by a now-global operation have to be able to have some kind of legal recourse, or they themselves would be censored, since none of US (non-corporate/consultant/"celeb," etc.) ever gets on the media anymore.

What if there had still been decent slander/libel laws a few years ago, when Republicans and their corporate media plants arranged the "Swift Boat" lies against John Kerry? They lied, were not even there, made demonstrably false statements, hurt Kerry's reputation as one who deserved the medals, the financing for the group would have been traceable to Rove/Bush, etc. Things in the world might have been very different if only there had been a lawsuit--with discovery--against these bastards. There would have been a rebellion against them then, instead of finally now. I wish there were still strong libel/slander laws to protect people against attacks from the privileged commercial world, which is now totally cut off from any possible "public/societal" claim--the atmosphere might be a lot less poisoned and vicious if there were guidelines again. Calling people hateful names that only your group can do because your group owns everything, has nothing whatsoever with "expressing an opinion" in a free society because you are a citizen. My free opinion is that I was glad the prick was fired, (after some 30 years of harrassing women on the job, and no one listening to them), and I hope the Rutgers student wins the lawsuit. I don't know if she will, though--women generally lose in the male system, no matter what it is.

[mondo joe]

72. Burnett didn't win because what was said was offensive, but because she had a solid

legal case. IMO, the Rutgers student does not. If she could meet the standards for slander, she should wwin - but I don't really see how that could possibly happen.

Kerry didn't take legal action, so there's not much of a comparison there either.

[BlooInBloo]

71. "[O]pen the floodgates"? ROFL!! White folks will make fun of black folks *anyway*....

... It's like Democrats voting for republican legislation because they're scared the republicans will rip on them.