Go get them Jason. Shut them down.
Had to wonder if all this wild mud slinging was going to splash someone with a lawyer. Maybe the douche bags that peddle propoganda in the guise of sports journalism will bother to do some actual research before they go all national enquirer on everyone.
You are right. I have wondered the same. I would assume that the Klein's have to suffer some sort of damage before a successful suit can be won. I am not an authority in legal advice so I don't know. I hope that they do make a statement that demands to be listened to.
I don't always take names when I kick ass but when I do, they most often belong to a Wolverine.
Doug Worthington has said time and again that he has done nothing wrong. Isaac said he never talked to Dorhman and pretty much everything about him was made up. If several of the people mentioned file suit, maybe they can be heard.
Do you get a pulitzer for making shit up and relying on drug dealers and felons for quality info?
Dad is pissed. Sick `em
"Okay -- I've got an El Camino full of rampage here."
Who watches the watchmen?
You don't necessarily have to suffer a financial loss to prove defamation of character. I hope the Klein's and whoever else do what they feel is necessary for themselves.
That said, the bigger thing here in scope of the program, is the more and more evidence suggesting a lack of credibility for the article and those quoted within it bodes well for the current players not suspended and the institution.
Round on the ends and hi in the middle ....
Not to rain on everybody's parade, but the article did not specify that stuff was traded by the people mentioned in the article for just tatoos. That is where they left themselves an out. SI, as well as the source, can argue that Simon, Klein or any of the others traded stolen stuff for money. There is no way to disprove that.
Buckeye born and bred. Buckeye til I'm dead.
It's all heresay. Especially, the article. If Klein and others sue for defamation of character, isn't it reasonable to assume that Dorhman and the fella's he interviewed would have to provide proof that an item or items were traded for cash, tattoos, or drugs by Storm Klein? I'm not a legal expert or anything, but if someone is out to clear their name, isn't it the one defaming going to need to come up with more proof than, " Well the drug dealer tattoo artist said so, so it must be true."
No. If you are the plaintiff it is your burden. All si has to-do is say they acted in good faith based on the statement of the anonymous source. It gets complicated as the first amendment case law will ultimately come into play as the real defamation is from the source and not really si. Those bastards.
SI printed it .. it therefore becomes their responsibility to uphold the information used in the article. First Amendment may protect free speech but it does not defend your right to say whatever you wish to say.
From several law sources:
In order to prove defamation, you have to be able to prove that what was said or written about you was false. If the information is true, or if you consented to publication of the material, you will not have a case. However, you may bring a defamatory action if the comments are so reprehensible and false that they affect your reputation in the community or cast aspersions on you.
If the defamation improperly accused you of a crime or reflected on your profession, the court or jury can assess the damages. For other types of defamation you must prove some actual damage to be able to recover
.. It's clearly a slippery slope but if there is no physical proof and SI printed based solely on the words of the one individual, then there could be a case.
I hate loiyas....but I hope Jason Klein sues the fuck out of Sports Illustrated.
The article did say tattoos or money yes, but Klein's dad said he has all of Storm's memorabilia. that makes the article and its contents a little less believable.
There is still the alleged equipment theft from the WHAC....
Article quotes the anonymous source as saying Pryor gets whatever he wants. I would assume the implication is that the others could too. Might be difficult to prove, by the plaintiff in any case they there weren't involved. However, SI could have a hard time proving they did with certainty.
All I am saying, is anything that casts any shadow of a doubt on the SI piece and the ongoing investigation into those matters, is a good thing.