delusions of grandeur Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) I think a law can begin to be evaluated by implementing the most extreme examples and working backwards. BTW - keep going, I'm asking questions because I don't know the answers, and I'm learning. Fair enough, and maybe someone like Furd can answer the more extreme examples to know where the line is drawn... Obviously I'm not going to pretend that I know anything beyond what allows the media to put out all the crap sensationalist and even blatantly stories they do so often nowadays. Edited March 22, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 https://p.twimg.com/...TTACEAM60T3.jpg That's an interesting take. Nobody can prove that's actually Payton. But if it is, certainly puts a twist on the situation Nice find. I'm going to tweet this so folks know that Payton supports Shockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 There used to be a time when networks would not report rumors or unfounded speculation. Networks used to only bring up these items if it were so widespread that the rumors were common knowledge or if they had substantial facts to support the claim. That type of integrity is seen less and less. That only makes sense if you ignore who owns the NFL Network. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WashingtonD Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/sapp_could_face_trouble_for_calling_W8HLpHPNyB1Xb0KKPRdH9K?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=More%20Sports So Sapp could be in trouble, but interestingly enough only if shockey was the snitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 http://www.nypost.co...t=More%20Sports So Sapp could be in trouble, but interestingly enough only if shockey was the snitch Okay, this makes far more sense than defamation, for outting a guy who was whistle-blowing against unsafe conditions. Quite a twist that he only gets in trouble if he's telling the truth about Shockey snitching Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) http://www.nypost.co...t=More%20Sports So Sapp could be in trouble, but interestingly enough only if shockey was the snitch OK, wait. I was joking about that chat between Payton and Shockey being real. You mean to tell me Jeremy Shockey actually tweeted that? Uh oh. Now, I'm starting to take Sapp's side. Edited March 22, 2012 by electricrelish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WashingtonD Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Nice find. I'm going to tweet this so folks know that Payton supports Shockey. The bigger issue with shockeys text with Payton is why two grown men are texting like 12 year old girls. "hugs" multiple exclamation points after every sentence, geezus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 The bigger issue with shockeys text with Payton is why two grown men are texting like 12 year old girls. "hugs" multiple exclamation points after every sentence, geezus You hit the nail on the head. If that chat is genuine, then that's almost as bad as the bounties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 There is not a precedent odf lawsuit.. Libel and slander are extremely hard to prove, because they require not only knowledge of it's falsity, and I believe also malevolent intent. All Sapp has to say is my source was mistaken, and it'd kill any lawsuit. I somehow doubt it's quite that cut and dry. If I go on a news show and say you're diddling little boys according to my source, I can't just shrug my shoulders and say "Ooops, my bad!" and expect it to go away. In a civil case, it would seem Shockey could argue loss of future earnings somewhat effectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 OK, wait. I was joking about that chat between Payton and Shockey being real. You mean to tell me Jeremy Shockey actually tweeted that? Uh oh. Now, I'm starting to take Sapp's side. LMAO, that's a real chat exchange? Are you sure Shockey wasn't joking around with it? Or is that even Shockey's real twitter account? Looks like a joke to me. HUGS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 LMAO, that's a real chat exchange? Are you sure Shockey wasn't joking around with it? Or is that even Shockey's real twitter account? Looks like a joke to me. HUGS! It's his twitter account. It's got to be a joke. https://twitter.com/#!/JeremyShockey/status/182874403971928064/photo/1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) It's his twitter account. It's got to be a joke. https://twitter.com/...1928064/photo/1 He better be careful, because according to some in this thread it'd be all too easy for Payton to sue him for defamation of character. You know he's gotta be looking for a way to recoup some of that $8 million he's losing... I somehow doubt it's quite that cut and dry. If I go on a news show and say you're diddling little boys according to my source, I can't just shrug my shoulders and say "Ooops, my bad!" and expect it to go away. In a civil case, it would seem Shockey could argue loss of future earnings somewhat effectively. Hmmm, I guess we then get back to the extreme examples I'm less sure of, so you and BB have actually given me something to think about and perhaps research (unless one of our legal minds want to opine). ETA: though the part of your example that may be different, is that it might be easier to prove that he knew it was false when he said it, and thus there was malicious intent... In this case, it can probably be more easily discounted as a rumor that made it's way throughout the grapevine. Edited March 22, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 He better be careful, because according to some in this thread it'd be all too easy for Payton to sue him for defamation of character. You know he's gotta be looking for a way to recoup some of that $8 million he's losing... Hmmm, I guess we then get back to the extreme examples I'm less sure of, so you and BB have actually given me something to think about and perhaps research (unless one of our legal minds want to opine). ETA: though the part of your example that may be different, is that it might be easier to prove that he knew it was false when he said it, and thus there was malicious intent... In this case, it can probably be more easily discounted as a rumor that made it's way throughout the grapevine. I'm no legal expert, and the Post is talking Federal, whereas I'm talking civil where OJ was found guilty after being not guilty in criminal court. I think Sapp stepped in it big time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) I'm no legal expert, and the Post is talking Federal, whereas I'm talking civil where OJ was found guilty after being not guilty in criminal court. I think Sapp stepped in it big time. Yep, well the case seems much more airtight to the possiblity of charges for outting him if it's true, that could be a real mess... Of course if it's true, then that kills any defamation, libel, etc., lawsuit of course... But if false, I think Sapp can afford good enough lawyers on a weak enough case to where I have to assume, without looking into it any further yet, he should be far more worried if it's true than false. Edited March 22, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Like my new avatar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Like my new avatar? Good to see you're switching to a team that might actually have a shot at something this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Good to see you're switching to a team that might actually have a shot at something this year. Are you kidding? With the lack of any real moves by their front office, the Vikes have an excellent shot at the number one pick in next year's draft as well as at alienating their fans into not caring while they pack the moving truck and move to LA in Major League Cleveland Indians style. Edited March 22, 2012 by CaP'N GRuNGe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Are you kidding? With the lack of any real moves by their front office, the Vikes have an excellent shot at the number pick in next year's draft as well as at alienating their fans into not caring while they pack the moving truck and move to LA in Major League Cleveland Indians style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 It's the Vikings. Grunge knows having the number 1 pick and being the first team to turn in a pick aren't the sme thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 yeah that's the ticket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Are you kidding? With the lack of any real moves by their front office, the Vikes have an excellent shot at the number one pick in next year's draft as well as at alienating their fans into not caring while they pack the moving truck and move to LA in Major League Cleveland Indians style. Uh-oh, even LA doesn't want you anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Yep, well the case seems much more airtight to the possiblity of charges for outting him if it's true, that could be a real mess... Of course if it's true, then that kills any defamation, libel, etc., lawsuit of course... But if false, I think Sapp can afford good enough lawyers on a weak enough case to where I have to assume, without looking into it any further yet, he should be far more worried if it's true than false. Well, this isn't him shooting his mouth off at a bar. He was on air and you are held to a high standard under broadcast rules. He stepped in it deep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Well, this isn't him shooting his mouth off at a bar. He was on air and you are held to a high standard under broadcast rules. He stepped in it deep. Broadcast rules? I'm not sure what we're even debating anymore, I just said I'd be more worried if it's true because it seems a much stronger case, so I think now you might be the one who is making this to be too cut and dry. (ETA: not to turn this into a pissing match, but there's a reason reporters and media outlets don't get sued, and even less of the time successfully sued, because the system is set to protect you until it can be shown you're guilty... Just because Sapp ends up costing him money, does not mean it's easy at all to win in court that Sapp is liable for reporting what he hears... I could be mistaken, but I'm quite sure it's not so simple as "he stepped in it"). Edited March 22, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Broadcast rules? I'm not sure what we're even debating anymore, I just said I'd be more worried if it's true because it seems a much stronger case, so I think now you might be the one who is making this to be too cut and dry. (ETA: not to turn this into a pissing match, but there's a reason reporters and media outlets don't get sued, and even less of the time successfully sued, because the system is set to protect you until it can be shown you're guilty... Just because Sapp ends up costing him money, does not mean it's easy at all to win in court that Sapp is liable for reporting what he hears... I could be mistaken, but I'm quite sure it's not so simple as "he stepped in it"). Did he just tweet it or repeat it too on the NFL Network? If he did the latter, that's where the broadcast rules do come in. And organizations don't get sued because they are supposed to vet 'rumors' to make sure they're facts if they choose to report them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Did he just tweet it or repeat it too on the NFL Network? If he did the latter, that's where the broadcast rules do come in. And organizations don't get sued because they are supposed to vet 'rumors' to make sure they're facts if they choose to report them. Sapp was brought on the NFL Network and asked what he meant by his tweets, so he explained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.