Sharpton -I will not bend, buckle or bow
My question to ponder - if you pretty much have a reputation of being a media whore, is it really possible to cause your reputation harm?
That fat racist blowhard?
After what that chunk of shit did to Steve Pagones (remember the Tawana Brawley case)…
That tubbaguts can GET RAILED!
Love and tactical nukes in Fatboy’s direction! 
Isn’t truth an affirmative defense to a defamation suit?
The example I always like to use is: What if you accused Charles Manson of cheating at Scrabble?
With Al Charlatan, most unfavorable reports are DEFINITION of character.
No.
It has to be both true and appropriate to the article. If, for example, I was writing an article about well-known software programmers and I mentioned that “Bob” was also a cross-dresser. He could sue me because while his cross-dressing is true, it was not appropriate to the article. It could also be reversed. If I were writing about cross-dressers, and I mentioned that “Bobette” was also a C++ programmer, “Bobette” could sue me perhaps because none of her friends spoke to her anymore because they are all perl people.
Well at least we know what kind of slurs are still okey-dokey.
:rolleyes:
(FTR…I consider Sharpton to be a media whore bottom feeder. Not sure what weight has to do with it though…)
Devil’s Grandma is wrong about there being some sort of “appropriate to the article” requirement. I’ve never heard of such a thing, and I have more than a passing familiarity with American defamation law.
As for the question at hand, the relevant legal principle is that a plaintiff may not recover damages for defamation to his character when the plaintiff’s reputation is so bad that the defamation could not have harmed it. Of course, whether the plaintiff’s reputation is so bad it can’t be further harmed is a question for the jury. So yes, Sharpton can sue for defamation, and the jury will decide whether or not he was capable of being defamed.
The story linked in the OP, by the way, seems to indicate that Sharpton is suing for false light defamation, i.e., putting true things in an incorrect context so that they appear defamatory.
And finally, as a public figure, Sharpton is constitutionally required to prove both the falsity of the statements (or the context, if this is false light) and the malice of the broadcaster, i.e., that HBO knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for truth or falsity. Good luck with that burden of proof, Reverend Al.
Yeah, but it’s a billion dollars! Think of all the good he could do with it.
Not that he would, of course; he’d just buy a satellite so he could beam gallons of his tripe directly into every household on the globe. But you see where I’m coming from.
Yeah, the damages claimed are out of all proportion to any possible value of Sharpton’s reputation. If I were HBO, I’d seek damages for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Well, whether Sharpton has a reputation as a media whore or not, I don’t believe he has a reputation as a drug dealer. If he’s telling the truth…that he was approached by an undercover FBI agent to set up a drug deal but never agreed to do so, and HBO is airing selective segments of the tape to suggest he did agree to it, that could be defamation, couldn’t it?
Indeed.
Want some crackers and cheese to go with that whine? :rolleyes:
Sheesh, political correctness is soooooo nineties. I don’t know about you, but I’m not about to bolt my jaw shut just to avoid offending some uberliberal. While I agree that people shouldn’t be deliberately offensive, I also think that there’s such a thing as TOO sensitive. Intelligent people can tell right away that I was slamming Sharpton specifically, and not fat people in general.
Still offended? Email me at quitwhiningand@getoverit.com.
Good manners, however, are always appreciated. A simple “Sorry for causing any offense” is usually preferable to acting like a spoiled 12-year-old.
<<Puts xyzzy on the “Numbskull” list>>
We have a ‘numbskull’ function? Kewl!
Congrats on the nuptials, BTW.
Ah, if only there were such a board function. We could have every post by a Numbskull appear with with flashing red text saying “Warning! Poster is not someone to be taken seriously!” Sadly, the Numbskull list is merely a running tab I keep in my head.
And thanks, spooje! I had to give up tickets to see the A’s, the Yankees, and the Red Sox over the next week, but the wedding ought to be worth it. 
I think Sharpton has no chance of prevailing, but this because the laws are unfortunately so skewed in favor of the media. I’ve not seen the video, but from what I’ve heard it does indeed do him a disservice.
Not that I’m symphathetic. After what he has done in his career to defame so many other people, this is a fraction of the payback that he has coming to him.
The damages claimed in lawsuits are frequently outrageous - Sharpton is not breaking new ground here. That does not make the lawsuit frivolous.
The guy has no factual predicate to seek $1,000,000,000 in damages to his reputation. That makes his claim frivolous, and I’d be all over it as a defense lawyer.
The value of a reputation is so intangible that I don’t see how it is possible to provide factual basis for any particular number.
Izzy - I think you’d agree that reputations differ among people. For a private person (such as myself for example), if some one were to publicize some event such as this HBO special is doing, it would do my reputation serious harm, potentially destroying my ability to earn a living, live as a private person etc.
However, Al is a very, very public figure. In addition, it would be my contention (and why I did this thread in the first place) that his reputation ain’t great in the first place. There are folks who support him, (aren’t there???) but those folks, I would contend wouldn’t believe that HBO tape in the first place, would be steadfastly at his side singing in Greek Chorus fashion “I know that’s right!”, and for those people, there would be no harm to his reputation.
Then, there are the rest of the people - who think of him as a media whore, low life, scum sucking opportunist, a lying, manipulative gutter snake. For those of us, there ain’t no way our opinion of him could get worse, hence once again, No harm to his (non existent) reputation.
and I disagree wholeheartedly with your statement here that the value of a reputation is so intangible that it cannot ever be the factual basis for a damage number. If some one were to impune my reputation and damage my career, we could easily estimate my projected earnings, and therefore the damage.
Of course, that would be an issue for a GD version of this thread. I placed it in the Pit 'cause I think his reputation is so sewer laden as to make the suit laughable. My fondest hope would be that there would indeed be a trial, and that the damages awarded would be one penny* (the current value of his rep, IMHO).
- although I have some half memory of “pennies are not considered legal tender”, so perhaps the lowest amount a jury could award would be a dollar.