OK State Hostess Scandal

[LSU-SIU]

Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that sources do not have to be disclosed. They are covered by the First Amendment.

Then he can't claim he has a source. DEFAULT. He never even claimed he had a sources yesterday, he was saying it. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Most of the SCt decisions involve government subpoena of reporter's sources, with that it's on a case by case basis.

Branzburg v. Hayes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will make clear in an opinion - unless the court's opinion is clear - that there is a privilege analogous to an evidentiary one, which courts should recognize and apply on case by case to protect confidential information. My vote turned on my conclusion - after hearing arguments of counsel and re-reading principal briefs - that we should not establish a constitutional privilege. If we did this, the problems that would flow from it would be difficult to foresee: e.g., applying a privilege of const. dimensions - to grand jurys, petite juries, congressional committees, etc... And who are "newsmen" - how to define? [2]

 

[bamawriter]

Branzburg doesn't apply to this case. It applies only when a reporter witnesses illegal activity and says that he/she cannot protect someone from prosecution simply by claiming that the potential suspect/litigant is a "source".

Branzburg's decision applies a limiting principle on press privilege, it does not nullify it.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Branzburg's decision applies a limiting principle on press privilege, it does not nullify it.

How do you think the Star magazine (or whatever) they are called gets sued, people call them out on it. There is no right to remain silent in a civil case when you the Defendant, if you put forward an affirmative defense you are going to have to prove it. The government will have a harder time depending on a subpoena, but if the information is relevant to a civil case were the person is making an affirmative defense what you are saying is meaningless.

Anything that is relevant to the case will be demanded and will be turned over, and the Defendant certainly will have to prove it as an affirmative defense. There is no free pass just because you may or may not be a reporter, sorry, doesn't work that way.

Without the sources, he has no defense. Unless he can prove by other means that his facts were correct. His affirmative defense would probably be striken and eventually a motion to compel and them a motion for contempt.

Most of the case and shield laws involve reporter privilege deal with government interference or intrusion for obvious reasons, the government can use that as a way and means to stop activity under the 1st Amend. An affirmative defense must be PROVEN. I love Defendants that think they can remain blanket silent in a civil action, makes me chuckle.

 

[bamawriter]

How do you think the Star magazine (or whatever) they are called gets sued, people call them out on it. There is no right to remain silent in a civil case when you the Defendant, if you put forward an affirmative defense you are going to have to prove it. The government will have a harder time depending on a subpoena, but if the information is relevant to a civil case were the person is making an affirmative defense what you are saying is meaningless.

This article is 20 years old, but it details why the tabloids rarely ever lose a defamation or libel suit:

How the Supermarket Tabloids Stay Out of Court - NYTimes.com

Anything that is relevant to the case will be demanded and will be turned over, and the Defendant certainly will have to prove it as an affirmative defense. There is no free pass just because you may or may not be a reporter, sorry, doesn't work that way.

While there is no "free pass", the press has an extremely long leash.

A defendant in a defamation, slander, or libel suite does not have to prove that what he said or wrote about the plaintiff is true. The plaintiff has to prove that it was false, that the defendant knew it was false when he wrote it or said it, and that he disregarded the truth because of malice against the plaintiff.

Somewhat coincidentally, the landmark case regarding libel by the press involved two SEC football coaches: Bear Bryant and Wally Butts. The Saturday Evening Post wrote a long piece accusing Butts and Bryant of conspiring to fix the Bama-UGA game in 1962. The entire story was based on a source who claims to have picked up his phone and, through some crazy electronic error, was somehow hearing a phone conversation between Bryant and Butts. He "took notes", but there is no recording of the call. The Post took no steps to corroborate the source's accusations, and simply went to press with the story as verifiable fact. Butts and Bryant won their claims. The claim of malice was proven because the post had already had a run-in with Bryant over his public statements chastising the publication over an earlier article they'd written about him.

But you can see how this is an extreme example and a very high standard. The Post ran with story with no regard for the truth, with cause to know that the claims weren't true, and with malice aforethought.

For further reading click here.

 

[LSU-SIU]

While there is no "free pass", the press has an extremely long leash.

Yes, in government action. This is not a press issue, it's a factual issue. If he has evidence to support his claim, he is going to have to turn it over. He never provided evidence for obvious reasons, from what I heard.

A defendant in a defamation, slander, or libel suite does not have to prove that what he said or wrote about the plaintiff is true. The plaintiff has to prove that it was false, that the defendant knew it was false when he wrote it or said it, and that he disregarded the truth because of malice against the plaintiff.

Interrogatories solves this very easily, sorry but you keep going back to the same thing. Have you had to answer interrogatories? I assure you this is solved very quickly, if someone wanted to pursue it.

But you can see how this is an extreme example and a very high standard. The Post ran with story with no regard for the truth, with cause to know that the claims weren't true, and with malice aforethought.

Ding ding we have a winner! This is very easy to get to with a few interrogatories. And a very winnable case, as this isn't about someone calling Les Miles ugly, which is an opinion, it's purely a factual issue. Courts don't like cases being about someone being "ugly" but don't mind cases where someone is calling someone a "convicted child molester", two different things. One is factual, and one is opinion.

It's very easy to prove he is not a fraud, Les did you defraud anyone? Nope. You now have evidence on the record that he is not a fraud or did anything fraudulent with the football program.

You act like this is tough, most of this found out about in discovery. Danny would have to turn over all evidence, documents, information, notes, etc as to Les being a fraud. Four or five interrogatories and he would be crying.


On a similar note.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BS18mBTIgAAfRjD.jpg
I wonder if he is going to call out his friend, doubtful.

Bizarre comes to mind.
Dan Dakich threatens an IU grad's career... then invites him to co-host his radio show? | June | 2013

 

[bamawriter]

It's very easy to prove he is not a fraud, Les did you defraud anyone? Nope. You now have evidence on the record that he is not a fraud or did anything fraudulent with the football program.

You act like this is tough, most of this found out about in discovery. Danny would have to turn over all evidence, documents, information, notes, etc as to Les being a fraud. Four or five interrogatories and he would be crying.

Calling someone "a fraud" is not directly accusing someone of having committed fraud. From the dictionary:

a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

You can call someone a fraud without accusing him of any illegal activity. It's not different than saying "Les Miles pretends to be a virtuous guy, but he really isn't." And to your point from before, that's an opinion.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Calling someone "a fraud" is not directly accusing someone of having committed fraud. From the dictionary:

You can call someone a fraud without accusing him of any illegal activity. It's not different than saying "Les Miles pretends to be a virtuous guy, but he really isn't." And to your point from before, that's an opinion.

Good luck with that, easily solved with interrogatories either way. I don't think you know how it works, your argument went from one crazy reporter privilege thing to fraud is just an opinion. He said Les committing fraud, from what I was told he say LSU was cheating and breaking rules which were not reported to the NCAA. (Again this was relayed to me and I do not have first hand information as to the radio broadcast) Interrogatories and request for production will solve most of it. Trust me, it normally does.

At this stage, in my opinion, it goes way over the bounds of an opinion, either way he would have disclose the basis of his opinion, then it's in the jury's hands. I would say all of this is factual in nature, either way, good or bad, can be found in discovery.

 

[bamawriter]

Good luck with that, easily solved with interrogatories either way.

I get the feeling that you've recently heard or read the term "interrogatory", and you don't know what it really means.

I don't think you know how it works, your argument went from one crazy reporter privilege thing to fraud is just an opinion.

I've taken journalism courses, have you?

And I wasn't changing arguments, just detailing two different points.

He said Les committing fraud,

Is that what he said? Earlier it was "Les Miles is a fraud." I didn't hear the interview, so I'm depending on you. There is a very significant difference between the two. If he actually accused Miles of committing a crime, then defamation could be on the table.

 

[lawgator1]

By the way:

 

[LSU-SIU]

I get the feeling that you've recently heard or read the term "interrogatory", and you don't know what it really means.

I'll help you out, your "feeling" is wrong.

Never claimed to be journalist nor am I a journalism student. You're reaching. Next you will say Aliens have communicated with you and informed you.

 

[bamawriter]

I'll help you out, your "feeling" is wrong.

Fine.

Let's move past that to the central issue:

Before you said that the radio host called Les Miles a fraud. Then you changed it to him accusing Les Miles of committing fraud. Which is it?

 

[LSU-SIU]

Before you said that the radio host called Les Miles a fraud. Then you changed it to him accusing Les Miles of committing fraud. Which is it?

As I mentioned before I did not hear the radio broadcast first hand. Either way many of the things that were supposedly said, if they were said, could easily be grounds for a suit.

Now if nothing was said, of course, not much evidence for a suit.

 

[bamawriter]

As I mentioned before I did not hear the radio broadcast first hand. Either way many of the things that were supposedly said, if they were said, could easily be grounds for a suit.

Now if nothing was said, of course, not much evidence for a suit.

If he called Les Miles a fraud, there are no grounds for a suit. It is insulting, but it is not defamation.

If he said that he had evidence of Miles having committed fraud, then defamation is possible.

I once called Miles an idiot savant during a radio interview. It's been at least 2 years, and I've yet to be subpoenaed.

 

[Wilson27]

Hey, it is fun to look at the above picture of Okie St hostesses and play "point out the ho's?"

 

[LSU-SIU]

I once called Miles an idiot savant during a radio interview.

Exactly, I really don't see too much wrong with that statement from a legal point of view, depends. Either way those types of suits happen every day, some of the case the Courts do not mind, other ones they do.

 

[BUBear]

Hey, it is fun to look at the above picture of Okie St hostesses and play "point out the ho's?"

Ain't drunk enough yet but I'm working on it.

 

[Toujours Pret]

By the way:

Nobody slingin sausage there, i guess Stillwaters not for you.

 

[RollinVol]

By the way:

Ill take Oregon over this anyday.

 

[TXA&M07]

This happens at least once a season to some relevant program and all the media, alums, boosters, admin all get in a big fit for about a week or so over it. Then after everyone has had ample time to puff out their chest, it all dies back down and becomes 3rd page news on some local rag.

The NCAA doesnt have any teeth anymore any way, so why not just let everyone have their PR moment and we can move on.

NCAA/Media/Sources - "Yall been cheating and we're going bring the hammer down on you!"

School's Coach - "We run an honest program and are willing to punish players if they are found to be involved in something illegal. For now, they're all playing and are eligible under team rules."

School's Admin - "We're looking in to this too and are willing to cooperate with the NCAA."

School's Coach - "I'll only answer football questions from here out."

And then, about two weeks later the players in question "violate team rules during practice and have to sit out against Directional State College of the Blind for the first half." - per the SID.

Process is complete.

Its been 8 days since I said this and this little thread is already in the depths of page two here, and page 4 or 5 Nationally. Frankly I have not seen anything on this from any of the major networks. Let this serve as a lesson, the above is how these things get taken care of.

Everyone gets a chance to be a "badass" and make strong statements, and then not a damn thing happens.

:hi:

 

[KoachKletus]

Its been 8 days since I said this and this little thread is already in the depths of page two here, and page 4 or 5 Nationally. Frankly I have not seen anything on this from any of the major networks. Let this serve as a lesson, the above is how these things get taken care of.

Everyone gets a chance to be a "badass" and make strong statements, and then not a damn thing happens.

:hi:

You forgot your autogra$h.