Kelcy and Vic questioned for night club assault

[gamecock88]

Originally Posted by sc455

Just gonna say it...if kq is so distressed about his draft stock he should not have been with vic, and probably chaz, at a nyc club at 3 am..these guys never learn.

True. Wasn't Connor Shaw and Bruce Ellington in NYC as well? Connor was probably back in the hotel doing push ups. Bruce probably found a pick up game of basketball.....

[henmania]

Originally Posted by sc455

Just gonna say it...if kq is so distressed about his draft stock he should not have been with vic, and probably chaz, at a nyc club at 3 am..these guys never learn.

From what I have heard, Kelcy wasn't there. Chaz evidently was. There is a statement from the police that Chaz was attacked outside the club. Vic, on the other hand, can't seem to get his act together. His agent knew what he was dealing with and should have locked him down.

[fridayserv]

Originally Posted by GarnetInChicago

Dude, I get the anger, and it's justified. But don't go spouting off about something you clearly know nothing about. 1) the Constitution has absolutely NOTHING to do with civil suits for defamation, so for God's sake please don't be one of those people who cites the Constitution for just any old purpose that seems to suit their general point; and 2) there is no basis for defamation claim here. The actual statement TMZ made was that a source said they were wanted for questioning. If the source actually said that to TMZ, then that is a TRUE statement and 100% a defense to defamation. Perhaps there might be a claim against the "source," but since TMZ will never be obligated to reveal who that is, this goes nowhere.

The very best thing anyone could hope for here is that everyone just ignores the article. Any attention paid to it is a boon for TMZ since speculation and scandal are how they get paid.

In general I don't respond to uneducated comments, but Here is the answer for you.

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press".

If a suit was filed the defense by TMZ would be based on the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. Let me make it clear for you. Defamation suits happen all the time. The number one defense is Freedom of the press to present the news, the loophole is the UNNAMED SOURCE. Maybe you should go online and read it before making crazy comments. Even better read the 1964 case with the Court’s decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

[GarnetInChicago]

Originally Posted by fridayserv

In general I don't respond to uneducated comments, but Here is the answer for you.

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press".

If a suit was filed the defense by TMZ would be based on the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. Let me make it clear for you. Defamation suits happen all the time. The number one defense is Freedom of the press to present the news, the loophole is the UNNAMED SOURCE. Maybe you should go online and read it before making crazy comments. Even better read the 1964 case with the Court’s decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

I'm uneducated and crazy? You're welcome to challenge my view of the law, but how about holding off on the ad hominem attacks as a way of challenging my comments? For your information, I am certainly not uneducated and in general I stand by my prior statement that there is zero basis for a defamation claim here. I also stand by my assertion that your citation to the Constitution here is inappropriate and a point that does not even need to be addressed in light of the fact that TMZ's "statement" under the requisite elements for a defamation claim is a true one, that they were wanted for questioning.

Your citation to Sullivan completely misses the mark. The Sullivan court was asked to address one simple question: "We are required in this case to determine for the first time the extent to which the constitutional protections for speech and press limit a State's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct." And the Court held: "We hold that the rule of law applied by the Alabama courts is constitutionally deficient for failure to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press that are required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct."

The entire policy basis underpinning Brennan's majority opinion was that it was necessary to protect the press from governmental restriction on free speech in the interest of an ability to have an open and critical dialogue about our government and its officials, even where those opinions may be unpopular and even where they may occassionally be erroneous: "Thus, we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

And this is precisely the reason why I stated that your citation to the Constitution was inappropriate. Yes, the First Amendment affords the freedom of the press. It is well-established, though, that this does not extend to permitting the press to make untrue statements. Either the statement in the TMZ article is true (in which case it is simply not defamation) or it is untrue. The First Amendment only pertains to the governmental interference with speech, and has nothing to do with conduct by private parties. So even if the TMZ statement is untrue and there might be grounds for a libel suit, the First Amendment would have nothing to do with it.

(Sullivan does also stand for the proposition that where it is a public figure claiming defamation, then "actual malice" becomes a part of the requisite elements to prevail and the claim. So to the extent a public figure is seeking to claim defamation, my earlier point about not needing "actual malice" is mistaken. Again, though, I do not think Kelcy and Vic qualify as public figures thought they might be seen as limited public figures.)

Maybe now YOU ought to go read a few more cases, like Braden v. News World Communications, Inc., where the court held in a private libel action against the press that the reliance on a single, biased source did not constitute a reckless disregard for the truth (which is the standard under the elements for a claim short of that limited "actual malice" exception for public figures). Apart from the bias element, which would make that fact pattern more egregious than this one, the question here is pretty similar - would TMZ's reliance on a single unnamed source subject TMZ to liability for libel? Apparently not, because the claim would fail to establish the second element of the claim regarding reckless disregard (and of course I've already stated that I believe the claim would fail under the first element - that the statement be untrue).

[ReCOCKulous]

Boom! Lawyered?

[Transmaniacon]

I hate to get in the middle of this legal argument, but to the extent GiC is suggesting that Sullivan, Gertz, and their progeny don't place constitutional limitations on the scope of defamation law, that is just wrong (to be clear, I'm responding o his 4th paragraph). That is precisely what those opinions do. Before those cases, the First Amendment didn't protect untrue statements. After those cases, it did. That is, the First Amendment precludes liability for untrue statements made in relation to public figures (and perhaps even non-public figures involved in matters of public concern) if the publisher did not know the statements were false or had a reckless disregard for their truth.

To be fair, GiC seems to acknowledge this standard but doesn't concede the implication that the constitution thereby protects some untrue (otherwise defamatory) statements. That's all I wanted to make clear.

[bcolinc]

My head hurts. F$&@ reading!!!

[Goofyboy]

Wow! A hijack pissing contest. The thread wasn't going anywhere on topic anyway, i guess.

[GarnetInChicago]

Originally Posted by Transmaniacon

I hate to get in the middle of this legal argument, but to the extent GiC is suggesting that Sullivan, Gertz, and their progeny don't place constitutional limitations on the scope of defamation law, that is just wrong (to be clear, I'm responding o his 4th paragraph). That is precisely what those opinions do. Before those cases, the First Amendment didn't protect untrue statements. After those cases, it did. That is, the First Amendment precludes liability for untrue statements made in relation to public figures (and perhaps even non-public figures involved in matters of public concern) if the publisher did not know the statements were false or had a reckless disregard for their truth.

To be fair, GiC seems to acknowledge this standard but doesn't concede the implication that the constitution thereby protects some untrue (otherwise defamatory) statements. That's all I wanted to make clear.

I'm not at all making the assertion those cases don't place Constitutional limitations on the scope of defamation law. In fact, I'm pretty sure that my statements regarding Sullivan made pretty clear that I understand that notion - the potential exists that defamation law could interfere with the First Amendment freedom of the press and that is being curtailed by those decisions.

I'm saying though, that is only pertinent where you're dealing with public figures. The point I was trying to make in this whole exchange is that those limitations have nothing to do with the type of libel claim that Kelcy and Vic might try to pursue.

(I also originally had written 2 more paragraphs to my prior post that went on a bit more about the qualified privilege for anonymous sources, but I was just tired of making the argument. In there I had included a quote pertaining to the fact that ever erroneous statements could be protected in statements by the press involving public figures due to the important interest in protecting the free dialogue and critique of our government. If it was not clear in my last message, I do agree with that notion. Again, though, that is only relevant where you are dealing with defamation cases brought by public figures. Based on your first paragraph, it does not really seem that we are disagreeing.)

[sc455]

/\ nobody cares.

[GarnetInChicago]

Originally Posted by sc455

/\ nobody cares.

You're right, wrong place for that debate. Sorry for hijacking the thread. Just wanted to say I didn't see much recourse in lawsuit form for whatever harm might befall these guys because of this article.

[mike1520]

I'm I the only guy enjoying this debate, I should have focused on law.

Back on topic:

According to the espn article that was posted earlier in the thread all parties are innocent and they simply witness another group of people beating a man.

[yazoo]

Originally Posted by mike1520

I'm I the only guy enjoying this debate, I should have focused on law.

Back on topic:

According to the espn article that was posted earlier in the thread all parties are innocent and they simply witness another group of people beating a man.

No, you're not the only one. Some people just want to complain when they cannot understand an issue by saying disrespectful comments like, "nobody cares." Those were some interesting, well-written posts on the first amendment and law on defamation. If you don't care about the law, fine. A lot of people find it a fascinating subject.

[sc455]

Originally Posted by yazoo

No, you're not the only one. Some people just want to complain when they cannot understand an issue by saying disrespectful comments like, "nobody cares." Those were some interesting, well-written posts on the first amendment and law on defamation. If you don't care about the law, fine. A lot of people find it a fascinating subject.

that spat should have been dealt with privately..private messaging has its place. Has zero to do with content or depthness. Gic got it..

[MWard]

Originally Posted by Goofyboy

Wow! A hijack pissing contest. The thread wasn't going anywhere on topic anyway, i guess.

I'm just surprised it got to 4 pages and all they are being looked at is as witnesses....

[GamecockUltimate]

Originally Posted by sc455

that spat should have been dealt with privately..private messaging has its place. Has zero to do with content or depthness. Gic got it..

boohoo go away, it still applied to the thread.

[B-G]

So people think this didn't happen? Or Vic's arrest.

Would it be shocking if it didn't?

I'm confused with some peoples views.

[BeatBamaTwice]

Up north folks just aren't as friendly. I walked all throughout Times Square and not one person I passed said hi. When I'd say "hi" most looked at me like I wanted something. Maybe it's because there are more of them and there just isn't time. Sounds like Chaz is okay physically. Keeping my fingers crossed that neither he nor Victor are in any trouble. And for the scoreboard, I loved the First Amendment discussion.

[fridayserv]

GARNET IN CHICAGO

FOR THE RECORD THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MERITS OF A CASE AND THE DEFENSE OF THE CASE. MY POINT WAS TO THE DEFENSE BY TMZ BEING BASED IN THE CONSTITUTION. THE REASON COURTS IN CIVIL ACTIONS HAVE TWO PARTIES PRESENT THERE VIEW OF THE LAW IS BECAUSE OF THERE UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW VS THE FACTS. HERE IS THE FINAL FACT, MY STATEMENT OF UNEDUCATED WAS STRICKLY ON YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. I DON'T KNOW YOU OR HOW WELL YOU ARE EDUCATED. I SEE NOW YOU MENTION THE 1ST AMENDMENT, I'm GLAD YOU SEE THE CONTEXT OF A CIVIL DEFENSE.

[ReCOCKulous]

Order! Order! Order! Jury, please strike all comments from both counsels. I will hold both of you in contempt.

Thank you Colorado Tech University! Because of you, I knew 12 of the words these law dawgs used.