Exactly - I would also like to see them prove they have been affected in some way? If they contend that their reputations were soiled - well that's a hard thing to prove - someone would have to admit that they didn't hire, talk, deal with or associate with the players based on Imus's comments. Seems a good defense lawyer could shoot that down by playing the race card - simply say the person didn't discriminate based on Imus's words but the person's own racism.

I don't see him losing should he decide to go to court but will probably settle.

Any "goodwill" that team had as "victims" just went out the window BTW - looking to get paid and not "heal" their emotional scars [/sarcasm]

Exactly - I would also like to see them prove they have been affected in some way? If they contend that their reputations were soiled - well that's a hard thing to prove - someone would have to admit that they didn't hire, talk, deal with or associate with the players based on Imus's comments. Seems a good defense lawyer could shoot that down by playing the race card - simply say the person didn't discriminate based on Imus's words but the person's own racism.

I don't see him losing should he decide to go to court but will probably settle.

Any "goodwill" that team had as "victims" just went out the window BTW - looking to get paid and not "heal" their emotional scars [/sarcasm]

DAMN sorry for the double tap.....

While I sympathize with Ms. Vaughn's position and completely disagree with Imus' actions, her legal claim is weak at best. Vaughn would definately have difficulty in proving special damages (ie, that she suffered some sort of monetary/pecuniary loss). As 10:55 pointed out, someone would have to admit that they didnt hire, talk, deal with or associate with Vaughn based on Imus's comments. Vaught could possibly assert a claim of slander per se based on the theory that Imus imputed her chastity based on the comments that she was "ho" but it seems pretty clear that Imus's comments, when analyzed in context, were in a jokingly manner and by no means was he actually claiming that she was in fact a "ho."

check that, "imputing the UNchastity"

ok you go after imputing her unchastity - trot out 2 or 3 sexual partners and then ask the jurt to define "ho"? like pornography - hard to define but I know it when I see it.....

damn - jury not jurt

OK Bozos. FIRST!

I don't remember much from Bar Bri, but I thought imputation of unchastity was slander per se with no need to show damages.

Petitioner is correct in his assertion that "imputation of unchastity [is] slander per se with no need to show damages." However, Respondent's actions did not amount to imputation of unchastity at all: in calling Ms. Vaughn and her teammates "hos," Respondent was rather referencing what the Seventh Circuit has noted as "a
staple of rap music vernacular as, for example, when Ludacris
raps “You doin’ ho activities with ho tendencies.”"

my understanding of slander per se was that it allows the claim to go forward without proof of the element of damages. the downside of this as a practical matter is that you can win, but you only get your $1 nominal damages. she might get punitive damages but with no real damages i can't believe that wouldn't be found to be the result of inflamed passion of the jury or whatever the standard is in NY to withstand an appeal. so she has a loser of a case (that could still win) even before you get to the fact that my buddy Conviser told me that name calling is never enough. unless people believed that she was in fact a nappy headed ho, the statement was not defamatory. nevertheless, i bet she gets a couple hundred grand to go away and let Imus return to doing a radio show that I was only marginally aware of prior to this. I don't know what's more lame, the lawsuit or that the fake indignation by Sharpton et al. doesn't outlast the media coverage (i.e. where is the backlash against ABC now that Imus is supposedly in contract talks with them).

I never understood why this raised such a brouhaha (and I'm a woman, a feminist and a lawyer). "Nappy-headed hos" is a bone-headed thing to say, at best, but these women are young, successful athletes! Some dumpy old white guy fires off a weak insult and it somehow scars them emotionally and takes away their victory? C'mon! I've always wondered why the team wasn't like "Yeah, whatever Mr. Imus, come meet us on the court sometime. Now we're gonna go celebrate our young a**** off."

Imus called her a ho, and nappy headed. Therefore, if this chick can demonstrate that she (1) is a virgin, and (2) has her hair regularly straightened, then she may be able to win.

All she needs is a medical expert who can confirm that her hymen is intact, and a beautician to confirm that she regularly gets her roots touched up.

So. Bored.

I believe her lawyer was on television the other day and he made it seem that the reason behind the law suit was to establish some kind of scholarship/fellowship to study hate speech...

Imus did not call Kia Vaughn, in particular, a ho. Rather, he refered to the entire basketball team (the group) as hos. That makes the defamation case much more difficult.

Hypo: if I refer to the Cincinnati Bengals as a bunch of thugs and criminals, is that defamation? While most of them are, some (probably) are not. Even though I did not specifically identify anyone, is there a claim of defamation by those that are not thugs and criminals?

I still cannot understand why this entire ordeal was worth a minute of anyone's time. Honestly, who cares?? It may have hurt somebody's feelings...but don't we learn that lesson when we are 5?

9:43--It is worth a minute of time because our legal system facilitates forcing deep pockets into settling loser cases. That means cash, baby. You must not have the plaintiff's lawyer gene.

I don't think she needs to show that "ho" means "prostitute" or that she is a virgin. "Ho" is generally used to refer to someone who is sexually promiscuous. I think she should at least get to a jury with whether she is a "ho" as the term is commonly used. Clearly this involves chastity, so it's defamatory per se and she need not show actual damages. And I suspect this is less about the money and more about the principal (but we'll find out).

9:43 - You would be right if these girls were public figures. I don't think they are. People can't go around hurting other people's feeling with lies. That's why we have defamation laws.

Racism and sexism aside, the biggest problem is that Imus is not funny. If he was, maybe we could chalk this up to humor done in poor taste. But because his show is not at all funny, we're left to think that he meant what he said, and said it because he is a racist, sexist puke. Consider Howard Stern. I've never thought he is racist or sexist (well, aside from viewing women as sex objects, which is a different kind of sexism that I'm not trying to defend). It's because he's funny. It's clear that he's joking. I don't think Imus was joking.

What kind of discovery will be allowed - can Imus's lawyers ask about the plaintiff's entire sexual history?

9:42 raises an interesting point - would plaintiff lose if Imus can prove that some or most of the rutgers women were, in fact, nappy headed hos? Does that broaden the scope of discovery so this womant's lawsuit allows the defendant to find out about the sexual history of every member of the team?

ahhhh, the legal system at work. It's a beautiful thing.

10:01 - I would disagree that these girls aren't public figures. They play on a nationally recognized sports team. And he didn't call them each out by name individually, rather the very recognizable team itself. And I wouldn't say he said any lies about them, just expressed an opinion. My strong anti-PC bias also probably has something to do with it though...

10:01 - So under your theory, liability attaches only to those people you find unfunny? Or is it whether a jury finds the joke unfunny? Does it matter if the joke gets just a chuckle or a full-on laughing fit?

I think Ms. Vaughn needs to get over this - and not through a lawsuit. She must not have very high self esteem if this stupid a$$ thing that an old white man said about her basketball team "takes away the whole season" then she needs to be in therapy for other reasons. C'mon, I'd put good money down that she never heard the comments live.

Besides, she got to meet Oprah out of all of this. Do you think Oprah would have had the whole team on her show had this event not taken place? Maybe Oprah could hook Ms. Vaughn up with Dr. Phil for some "Get Real People" tough love.

10:27 - As a practical manner, if the jury found it funny, it would more likely think the speaker did not intend to convey the statement as being true, and would find for the defendant. If the jury found it unfunny, it would more likely conclude that it was offered as true, and find for the plaintiff. The grey area is where the jury thinks it was intended to be funny but actually wasn't. There, I would expect a verdict for the defendant, unless the jury wanted to punish the defendant for having the audacity to make an unfunny joke that many would find offensive.

People can't go around hurting other people's feeling with lies. That's why we have defamation laws.

===================

Uh, no. Defamation laws protect one's reputation, not feelings.

One more reason why I hate how litigious this fucking society has become.

10:01
How are college athletes not public figures? Reference Reggie Bush, Greg Oden . . I'm sure women's college basketball players are widely followed by that whole WNBA crowd (you know what I mean).

You doin ho activities
With ho tendencies
Hos are your friends, hoes are your enemies
With ho energy to do whacha do
Blew whacha blew
Screw whacha screw
Yall professional like DJ Clue, pullin on my coat tail
an why do you think you take a ho to a hotel?
Hotel everybody, even the mayor
Reach up in tha sky for tha hozone laya
Come on playa once a ho always
And hos never close they open like hallways
An heres a ho cake for you whole ho crew
an everybody wants some cuz hoes gotta eat too

Nappy headed hos to frivolous lawsuits!