The Back Alley Archives

Saw that on GC. TSIFU.

• In 1997, he was charged with repeatedly beating three of his girlfriend's four sons with an electrical cord. He told authorities he beat the boys three times.

the gambling stuff sounds inconclusive and prejudicial against him (nothing about sportsbetting, so I can't condemn him), but you can't beat kids with electrical cords. tsRIFU

concur w/ AA.

being as I'm only a lawyer in training, I'd love to have Doc weigh in on this...

can the ref sue for libel?

My guess would be no since it's based on truth and reasonable assumptions, but it's the prejudicial stuff that would concern me for this. Of course that would be more of an issue in a hearing to admit evidence, so I guess I answered my own question.

found this in AmJur:

A written or printed statement or article published of or concerning another which is false, and tends to injure his reputation, and thereby expose him to public hatred, contempt, scorn, obloquy, or shame, is libelous per se.

Also, truth is an absolute defense.

found this in AmJur:

A written or printed statement or article published of or concerning another which is false, and tends to injure his reputation, and thereby expose him to public hatred, contempt, scorn, obloquy, or shame, is libelous per se.

right, so my first thought was right...it doesn't matter how prejudicial so long as it is truth.

yep, i think that's right.

opens the question to ethics then...on both sides - the ref and the journalist.

agreed. i don't think the parallel drawn to the NBA ref Donaghy (sp) is very fair at this point, given the actual facts in the article.

but the ref, by being such a public figure, brought higher scrutiny on himself.

I'm not sure where I come down on this, yet.

The journalist has made some pretty bold assumptions or at the least harmful implications from this article, basically calling this guy a fraud in his profession.

However, the ref has certainly crossed many ethical lines leading me to believe he wouldn't be above crossing the one implied by the journalist and should know better than to gamble so much as to go into bankruptcy - opens the door for a Donaghy situation and jeopardizes his credibility at the very least.

I know journalist's have a job to do and investigate and report...but where does the line get drawn between and fact finding and implying?

I'm just not sure where I stand on this one yet.

Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen:

Cannot you plainly see that the Buckeyes are The Greatest Team Ever To Play; that the Tressel sits two seats to the right of God in Heaven during the week, and is whisked back to our earthly plane for Saturday; that the Holy Quarterback is suffused with the Blood and Spirit of Troy Smith; and that, furthermore, any "loss" the Buckeyes suffer must be due to human error or sinfulness?

Of course the "score" of said loss is false in God's eyes; of course the "official" must be exposed as a pawn of Satan; of course others must be exposed, from the groundskeeper who cursed the grounds to the Zook whose serpents were the agent of the hellish fraud.

Can't you see that these discoveries reveal God's glorious hand at work?

And us, gentlemen. And us. One cannot hide long from the wrath of the Lord.

Focking lawyers. Thank Tressel, Toothy stepped in and corrected the direction of this thread.

Now how long before the Bucknuts start claiming that the only reason they lost to Zook was because of the refs?

LMAO @ toothy.