A Blog devoted entirely to news about the University of Kentucky's Men's Basketball Team. Any e-mails and/or advertising inquiries should be sent to ukbasketball23@gmail.com.
Monday, August 09, 2010
Gary Parrish from CBSSports.com bets Anthony Davis simmers down and never seriously pursues legal damages against the Chicago Sun-Times
2 comments:
Wheatgerm
said...
I spent lunch today in the law library curled up with an encyclopedia of US defamation law and the Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated. Good times. And I'm not impressed with Parrish's explanation of the law or the difficulty Davis Sr. will face if he sues.
Defamation suits against the media can be mighty difficult, but you have to consider the circumstances. Here, where it looks for all the world like O'Brien recklessly repeated a defamatory rumor he saw on some website, the case looks rather straightforward. It would be the Sun-Times burden to prove that he sold his son's commitment to UK.
Parrish can't seriously draw an equivalence between his accusation in 2001, which he based on an on-the-record allegation from the coach's former assistant - a damn believable source - and O'Brien's repetition of rumor, which per se gives no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of matter asserted. These are completely different cases. Just because there wasn't a good case against Parrish doesn't mean there isn't a very good case against O'Brien. We'll see.
Wow, all of this from an afternoon reading an encyclopedia of US defamation law and the Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated. Really? Did you read all of it or a page here and there?...and in one afternoon? I think I will side with Parrish here. Your ego got in the way of truth Wheatgerm!
2 comments:
I spent lunch today in the law library curled up with an encyclopedia of US defamation law and the Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated. Good times. And I'm not impressed with Parrish's explanation of the law or the difficulty Davis Sr. will face if he sues.
Defamation suits against the media can be mighty difficult, but you have to consider the circumstances. Here, where it looks for all the world like O'Brien recklessly repeated a defamatory rumor he saw on some website, the case looks rather straightforward. It would be the Sun-Times burden to prove that he sold his son's commitment to UK.
Parrish can't seriously draw an equivalence between his accusation in 2001, which he based on an on-the-record allegation from the coach's former assistant - a damn believable source - and O'Brien's repetition of rumor, which per se gives no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of matter asserted. These are completely different cases. Just because there wasn't a good case against Parrish doesn't mean there isn't a very good case against O'Brien. We'll see.
Wow, all of this from an afternoon reading an encyclopedia of US defamation law and the Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated. Really? Did you read all of it or a page here and there?...and in one afternoon? I think I will side with Parrish here. Your ego got in the way of truth Wheatgerm!
Post a Comment