Crit40
Posts:2483
 |
| 01/31/2008 4:52 PM |
 Alert
|
I caught a little bit of this today. No matter what you think, it appears Matt and Trav started this little grudge match and now they are upset that Jim is fighting back?
I don't know, but suggesting someone is a liar without foundation, could pose a legal problem couldn't it?
I get that Rose is considered public domain due to his status as a radio personality, but does that mean you can broadcast rumors and inuendo without being called on it?
Creigh'unhackattorney? |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5397
|
| 01/31/2008 5:58 PM |
Alert
|
What us the jist of it?
Rome will own them and I'll lol... |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
SeahawksSB42champs
Posts:1206
|
| 01/31/2008 6:10 PM |
Alert
|
Considering Perrault's track record for reporting rumors that turn out to be full of crap, I'm wondering how much longer Journal Broadcast Group is going to allow such nonsense to continue.
Perrault has no street cred to begin with, and what little Justice has seems to be trickling away as well. |
|
|
|
|
egami
Posts:5397
|
| 01/31/2008 7:19 PM |
Alert
|
| JBG likes him because he's cheap entertainment...it's cost too much to hire quality. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
CreightonHackAttorney
Posts:105
|
| 01/31/2008 7:52 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Crit40 on 01/31/2008 4:52 PM
I caught a little bit of this today. No matter what you think, it appears Matt and Trav started this little grudge match and now they are upset that Jim is fighting back?
I don't know, but suggesting someone is a liar without foundation, could pose a legal problem couldn't it?
I get that Rose is considered public domain due to his status as a radio personality, but does that mean you can broadcast rumors and inuendo without being called on it?
Creigh'unhackattorney?
You're probably referring to the term "slander" which is verbal, and can be considered defamation of character.
For the record Nebraska is a state which recognizes "defamation per se", or if you want to stretch legalese a bit, is a "defamation per se state."
The First Amendment requires that a defamation plaintiff prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure. This is a much higher burden of proof for a public figure plaintiff. Instead of showing objectively that a "reasonable person" knew or should have known the defamatory statement was false, a public figure plaintiff must prove the intent of the defendant was malicious, or that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Statements of opinion are not defamation.
True statements of fact are not defamation,unless the statement is defamatory per se.
Statements which do not cause actual, quantifiable damage are not actionable defamation.
Statements which are made only to the plaintiff are not defamation.
Bottom line defamation lawsuits
are rather rare as you not only need to prove the statement was made with malice but caused harmed.
ps: hurt feelings normally won't get you a judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
SeahawksSB42champs
Posts:1206
|
| 01/31/2008 7:57 PM |
Alert
|
So if I'm reading you right, CHA, the only way Rose would be able to sue Perrault/Justice is if people he was doing business with in regards to selling advertising for Clear Channel and/or Husker Radio Network suddenly stopped doing business with him and he lost his job as a result.
And egami is right - JBG obviously is happy having such a low-rated radio program with third-rate "journalists" spouting half-truths and rumors. |
|
|
|
|
CreightonHackAttorney
Posts:105
|
| 01/31/2008 8:06 PM |
Alert
|
Sort of but you would also have to prove they stopped doing business entirely because of the statements made about him, which by the way must be proved to be "untrue"!
|
|
|
|
|
vranged
Posts:2813
|
| 02/01/2008 10:18 AM |
Alert
|
So, is it fair to say that if I went on the air, or wrote an article, which said "Matt Perrault is a pedophile." -- that would be actionable.
But if I said "In my opinion, Matt Perrault strikes me as the type of guy who might be a pedophile" -- it would be much, much harder to pursue a claim against me. |
|
After acknowledging that he was desperate, Dwight said "people will resort to saying things they know aren't true when they are desperate." That about sums it up! |
|
|
Omahan
Posts:3699
|
| 02/01/2008 12:35 PM |
Alert
|
The main problem with proving defamation of character is the protection of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. For those of you exposed to law as an occupation, you understand that defamation of any kind whether it be slander (verbal) or libel (written) is notoriously difficult to prove.
Most of the cases that do make it to court with a head of steam are very public cases involving famous people. Due in part to the court of public opinions impact. |
|
|
|
|
vranged
Posts:2813
|
| 02/01/2008 2:18 PM |
Alert
|
Like most of the public, Omahan, you are clueless about what free speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, is. Free speech has absolutely nothing to do with a civil defamation/libel case betwen two citizens.
Your First Amendment Rights are only violated if the GOVERNMENT precludes you from saying something. |
|
After acknowledging that he was desperate, Dwight said "people will resort to saying things they know aren't true when they are desperate." That about sums it up! |
|
|
Omahan
Posts:3699
|
| 02/01/2008 2:43 PM |
Alert
|
The First Amendment of our Constitution gives all american citizens the right to Free Speech, which includes internet websites btw. I understand that Free Speech does have its limitations. (this is off the top of my head)
The First Amendment does not allow anyone to make false or misleading statements about you that can harm or injure your livelihood, which is known as "Defamation of Character". I understand the difference between "Defamation" and "Dissent". Public Dissent has been protected by courts for years.
What is considered "Defamatory"?
False or misleading statement of fact can be considered defamatory.
Truthful statements aren't defamatory even if they do cause harm.
Opinions are not considered defamatory even if they do cause harm.
Maybe your remark of me being "clueless" is in regards to the grey area of defamation. The word malicious would factor in there.
Otherwise, how would you know how much knowledge I've got regarding defamation?
I'll answer that for you, none, which renders you clueless.
|
|
|
|
|
don geevafuc
Posts:25
|
| 02/01/2008 3:31 PM |
Alert
|
so the thread about the little sissy pillow fight between matt, trav and jim rose is now devolving into a little
b!tch fight about slander/defamation/libel by those posting about the original spat? cool. keep fighting, jerry springer will be sending a representative to moderate this event shortly. |
|
|
|
|
Omahan
Posts:3699
|
| 02/01/2008 3:44 PM |
Alert
|
No spatting here...just making a point.
We're either clueless or we're not. |
|
|
|
|
SeahawksSB42champs
Posts:1206
|
| 02/01/2008 5:09 PM |
Alert
|
From what I'm reading on some other blogs, it sounds like changes within the JBG are imminent, and that Perrault will be shown the door sometime within the next couple of months.
Of course, those ARE rumors, which Matt seems heavily invested in... |
|
|
|
|
Bugeater
Posts:971
|
| 02/01/2008 10:34 PM |
Alert
|
Meh. I've heard rumors of Matt's demise so many times I don't take them seriously at all. Why would JBG get rid of him? He's doing exactly what they want, being a homer for the team they're the flagship station for.
As far as the Rosie/Matt spat, I don't know the details but Matt is essentially the same thing to Creighton that Rosie was to Nebraska. Pot, meet kettle. |
|
|
|
|
CreightonHackAttorney
Posts:105
|
| 02/02/2008 8:06 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By Crit40 on 01/31/2008 4:52 PM
I caught a little bit of this today. No matter what you think, it appears Matt and Trav started this little grudge match and now they are upset that Jim is fighting back?
I don't know, but suggesting someone is a liar without foundation, could pose a legal problem couldn't it?
I get that Rose is considered public domain due to his status as a radio personality, but does that mean you can broadcast rumors and inuendo without being called on it?
Creigh'unhackattorney?
Back to Subject,
From what I gather concerning the "spat", one party called the other a liar over the air.
That would not be "cause" for legal action with any possible chance of winning, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Bugeater
Posts:971
|
| 02/02/2008 7:19 PM |
Alert
|
From what I gather concerning the "spat", one party called the other a liar over the air.
LOL, did Rosie actually call up Matt's show? Damn, I wish I would've caught that. |
|
|
|
|
vranged
Posts:2813
|
| 02/03/2008 2:57 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Omahan on 02/01/2008 2:43 PM
The First Amendment of our Constitution gives all american citizens the right to Free Speech, which includes internet websites btw. I understand that Free Speech does have its limitations. (this is off the top of my head)
The First Amendment does not allow anyone to make false or misleading statements about you that can harm or injure your livelihood, which is known as "Defamation of Character". I understand the difference between "Defamation" and "Dissent". Public Dissent has been protected by courts for years.
What is considered "Defamatory"?
False or misleading statement of fact can be considered defamatory.
Truthful statements aren't defamatory even if they do cause harm.
Opinions are not considered defamatory even if they do cause harm.
Maybe your remark of me being "clueless" is in regards to the grey area of defamation. The word malicious would factor in there.
Otherwise, how would you know how much knowledge I've got regarding defamation?
I'll answer that for you, none, which renders you clueless.
I see you have Google/Wikipedia. Very nice.
But all of these defamation/slander things you talk about have nothing to do with the First Amendment. They're separate civil torts. Thus, you don't know what you're talking about.
Don't feel bad though. Most people associate First Amendment with a "person's right to say anything". That's not what it is. It's a restriction on the government's ability to stop a person from saying something. Any spat between Perrault/ Rose, or any private citizens, would not in any way involve the First Amendment.
|
|
After acknowledging that he was desperate, Dwight said "people will resort to saying things they know aren't true when they are desperate." That about sums it up! |
|
|
Omahan
Posts:3699
|
| 02/03/2008 3:44 PM |
Alert
|
And you are a law professor? Because if you are anything short of that...I would suggest you reel your ego in.
I understand free speech and defamation as I posted previously. Don't portray Harvard knowledge from a Community College perspective. |
|
|
|
|
egami
Posts:5397
|
| 02/04/2008 8:23 AM |
Alert
|
Google / wiki posting....
Harvard / Community College belittlement...
... |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|