One thing not discussed at all in the current Imus flap is his legal liability. It seems to me that if you publicly SLANDER or DENIGRATE another person’s reputation (without proof), you should be liable for a civil suit for damages. In the Imus case, he slandered every African-American woman on the Rutgers Basketball team by calling them “Hos”. The accompanying descriptive “nappy headed” simply further defines who he is identifiying as a “Ho”. The accepted definition of a “Ho” is ghettoese for the word whore, or prostitute. It seems to me that Imus, MSNBC, General Electric. and any other business interests associated with his show have legal exposure to a strong and costly civil suit! In fact there should busloads of lawyers headed for Rutgers even as we speak to recruit possible clients from the African-American members of the women’s basketball team. I find it strange that with the possibility of a big time civil suit that this event offers that the public discussion is limited to the old time, oft used adage that this is an opportunity to discuss the racial problems in America. We have all heard this line before; in the aftermath of Rodney King, after the brutal dragging death by a pickup truck of a black man in Texas, after the incident where the New York police fired 51 shots fired into the body of an unarmed black, and so it goes on. I say to hell with the opportunity to start discussing racism in America. I say “see ya in court”!
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
The short answer is that Imus is probably not liable. Everything he said about the Rutgers team, disparaging as it may have been, can be considered opinion. He didn’t recite any facts that were slanderous. Slander requires a false statement, known to be false or uttered recklessly with disregard for its veracity, made with the intent to injure someone’s reputation, which in fact causes harm. In most jurisdictions, the utterance of a mere opinion is insufficient. If Imus is not liable, than neither is his employer.
and calling someone a ‘ho’ does not amount to an actual accusation that someone is a whore. If it did, you could never call someone a motherfucker.
And if the women on the team are considered “public figures,” which they might e now that they reached the NCAA finals, then the standard may be even tighter.
And, as George Carlin reminds us, you can’t even call motherfuckers “motherfuckers” on broadcast tv or radio.
I strongly disagree and I think you missed the point. The arguments that are irrelevant in this issue are: (a) The “Nappy head Ho” utterance was simple Imus’ opinion. (b) Imus did not slander the Black female members of the Rutgers Basketball team as slander is not applicable in this instance.
It is up to the courts to decide if these innocent women were injured by Imus’ utterances. The case against Imus is defamation of character, not slander. These young women are not public figures, as being a member of a college or university athletic team does not make that person a public figure. Imus’ words will have the consequence of limiting all of the development and future opportunity that might become available to these women, by simply being identified with negative impact of this controversy although innocent. For example, if one of these young women apply for a highly competitive prestigious position in some institution, and background checks disclose that she was a member of the Rutgers 2007 Women’s Basketball team, her attributes and qualification would most likely be compromised by this background information as she would be perceived as being too controversial and a distraction to the goals of the position she is applying for. Multiply this handicap to the normal rejections suffered by African-Americans in the normal pursuit of their goals and the future injury caused by the Imus event to these women is huge. Therefore, it is up to the courts to decide the degree of injury to these women caused by Don Imus and his employers.
Sorry, but being an asshole isn’t generally tortious conduct, especially in light of the first amendment.
This isn’t a defamation suit, at best its an intentional interference with future business relations, and that would be extremely difficult to prove. You still have to prove intent to injure the team members in their future careers, and the likelihood of that future harm. In this instance the only person who seems to have suffered significant monetary damages is Imus himself. Emotional harm, absent some sort of physical manifestation is not generally sufficient injury under the common law, and even then it would have been to have been foreseeable.
of 24/7 “media” would the race issue go away?
What if Rodney King had zero knowledge of the guy in Texas. What if the “news” of Don was not electronically distributed instantly to a bazzillion other outlets. Project Mockingbird, I think that’s what the CIA called it.
First off, they NEEDED the Don Imus affair to flatline the Rosie ODonnel comments about 911 truth on her show the View.
I would also love to the the official policy change/gag order sent to Bill O telling him to cease mentioning 911 truth.
My daughter is a product of the whole socially engineered “diversity” “movement” era. She loathes, gays,blacks,people who don’t speak English,Latinos, it’s the kids are the opposite of their parents theme.
I didn’t teach her to hate, society, or rather the “media” did that.