Re: What Now for the Herald?
- From: "El Guapo" <plethora@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 16:24:13 -0400
"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"El Guapo" <plethora@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"Orwell" <orwellnelson@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
Suing is always a difficult task when you are a public figure, but it
now looks like the story is so totally false that it's hard to imagine
any justification for running it.
How is the story proven to be false? They never said that Walsh was the
source, and they never said that they had proof, just that a source
"close to the team" had made the allegation. Unless the Patriots can
prove that the BH made the source up, it's unlikely that they can be
It does beg the question, however. If not Walsh, then who was the
source? The BH is under no obligation to say, unless it becomes part of a
They don't need to "prove it false". If they sue, the onus will fall
squarely on the defense to prove the story had merit and provide something
concrete. In the absence of evidence, they'd likely lose (and probably
Um, no. Among other things, the plaintiff has to prove that the published
information was false, and that the defendant is at fault. Remember, the
statement in question is this:
"According to a source, a member of the team's video department filmed the
Rams' final walkthrough before that 2002 game."
Unless the Patriots can prove that he made up the source, or knew for a fact
that the source was lying, there is no libel, at least not in the US. Be
happy for that. It might sometimes make for some sloppy reporting, but it's
far preferable to the alternative.
- Prev by Date: Re: Spygate bullshit
- Next by Date: Re: Spygate bullshit
- Previous by thread: Re: What Now for the Herald?
- Next by thread: Re: What Now for the Herald?