Coachman show. Can anyone listen/recap?
Just heard it. Blanc said he never saw or heard any of what Roberts claimed and that he only told her what McNeil had told him. He was emphatic about never seeing any money change hands or any grades changed.
I'd be looking to file a defamation of character lawsuit, if I was Mike Blanc. Do that and win the lawsuit, that'd make hack â€journalists†think twice about misquoting people.
- The Auburn allegations: This was all before the ESPN story broke. Jenkins was just referring to journalist Selena Roberts' story, which alleged payments to players, academic fraud and other shenanigans."Some of that stuff is -" Jenkins then made a whistling sound. "Glad I didn't go there."Jenkins said he read about half the story on Wednesday night, then decided to go to sleep."I believe a little bit of it," Jenkins said. "Some of it's a little hearsay. I think some stuff might've been going on. But some of it's a little far-fetched, I think."Jenkins said none of that ever happened to him while he was being recruited."The closest thing I ever got was ... I don't even know. I had no shady recruitment," he said. "If someone had offered me a million dollars I would've thought about it for a second. Then I probably would've said no. But I don't know: For a million dollars you probably would've been able to get a good enough lawyer."
I was hoping to listen but had an unscheduled dump to take care of.
Serious Lawyer question: Does Auburn not have grounds to sue the shit out of Roberts & ESPN at this point?To me, these claims are full of slander, libel, and damaging the brand of Auburn University.http://www.macon.com/2013/04/04/2425006/the-jordan-jenkins-comedy-hour.htmlTo me, that's evidence enough that Auburn's brand was damaged by these false allegations.
In 1964, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of The New York Times v. Sullivan, and the law of defamation changed drastically. For the first time, the Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment, which protects an individual's freedom of speech and expression, protects even speech and expression that is defamatory. In Sullivan, the plaintiff was a public official who sued The New York Times for libel after the newspaper published certain unfavorable allegations about him. The Supreme Court discussed the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states in part that "Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press." The First Amendment exists, according to the Court, to help protect and foster the free flow and exchange of ideas, particularly on public or political issues. The Founding Fathers of the United States valued open debates regarding political issues or governments, determining that citizens in a democracy need a free marketplace of ideas in order to become informed and make good decisions. Open debates often become caustic and emotional, with opponents sharply attacking one another in the effort to persuade others. Sanctioning defamatory speech or expression would put an end to such attacks, but sanctions would also jeopardize the free marketplace of ideas by effectively censoring free and open debate.The Court saw the need for balancing an individual's right to be protected from false and defamatory accusations with the country's right to be informed via a free marketplace of ideas. It determined that in the case of a public official, such as the police official in Sullivan, the First Amendment rights of free speech and expression outweigh the public official's rights unless the public official can prove that the defendant acted with actual MALICE. Actual malice means that the defendant who communicates a defamatory statement does so knowing that the statement is false or very likely false. The defendant need not harbor ill will toward the plaintiff for the public official to recover in an action for slander or libel; the public official need only prove that the defendant knew that the defamatory statement was false or had serious doubts as to its truth.The actual malice standard only applies to public officials or public figures who sue for slander or libel. Other examples of public officials include elected officials, such as governors or senators, or non-elected government employees with substantial responsibility or control over public affairs. Courts have held that candidates for public office also are public officials and must prove the actual malice standard before prevailing in libel or slander lawsuits.The Supreme Court in 1967 expanded the actual malice standard for public officials to include public figures as well. Public figures, unlike public officials, are not government officials but instead are extremely prominent private citizens whose prominence allows them to use the mass media to influence policy. Public figures, by the Court's definition, thrust themselves into the public arena. Examples of public figures include famous movie actors, musicians, professional athletes, authors, and others who are so prominent as to be household names.
I have unscheduled dumps regularly and in a timely fashion.
Frodo may correct me but it takes a lot to sue for libel as a public facing entity. The ones that would have a better chance of suing would be guys like Mike Dyer or folks mentioned in the story that were slandered... the question is though was anyone slandered? Saying Dyer was ineligible isn't slander.
I call this a shit and git. I have these quite often too. Sometimes, it comes out so fast it doesn't leave a trace. I call that a no wiper.
Plus, I don't think Auburn wants to open themselves up to discovery...
Bingo. The universities/athletic programs (any of them, really) do not want to open the files. Thus, the "media" is emboldened.
But Individuals still could.
The no wipers are good if you are a person on the go but if you like to look to see what you produced, not so much. They come out so fast and so clean, they have already snaked their way down the drain.
I can understand this and I was probably like this once. Not to brag, but once you reach a level of self-actualization with your shits, there is no need to look and see what you have produced. I've already laid some loafs that were worthy of mounting and have no desire to prove myself any longer.
Unless you have ever had a good field shit, you don't know bliss.
39 Replies
3914 Views