Law by Le Ginge

As some of you may know, litigation has recently been commenced against Mothership Deadspin by one disgruntled ex-ESPN employee.  Sean Salisbury is suing for damages relating to his inability to achieve gainful employment and how this situation is directly related to Deadspin's defamation "campaign."  And so like a good non-lawyer, I consulted the services of the dark side in order to better elucidate the tenability of this lawsuit as well as to surgically dissect the fecal nature of this bullshit that surrounds.

Le Ginge will provide the lawyer-speak, whilst I will go about providing the annotations to make it more intelligible for our lesser readers.

Defamatory and Libel Suits:

In Texas, the elements of a defamation claim are

   1. publication of a statement;

   2. that was defamatory (false) concerning the plaintiff;

   3. with the requisite degree of fault.

What did you say about me?  Yeah, well it's bullshit and I'm not gonna take it. 

• PUBLICATION is defined as:  “The dissemination of information to one or more persons. Publication can include news articles, blog posts, podcasts, videos, or even user comments. In the defamation context, publication occurs if the statement is made to one or more persons other than the plaintiff.”
• DEFAMATORY is defined as:  “A false statement of fact, whether written or oral, that is communicated to a third-party and injures the subject's reputation.

Oh, so you didn't just say this shit to me?  But you gave this bullshit to everyone?  It's fucking on now, son.

Degree of fault is determined by whether or not the person claiming that he or she was defamed is a public figure/limited-purpose public figure/ or a private figure.

1. Public Figure:  “All-purpose public figures are private individuals who occupy "positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figure for all purposes. . . . They invite attention and comment." Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1972). For these individuals, the actual malice standard extends to virtually all aspects of their lives.  This category includes movie stars, elite professional athletes, and the heads of major corporations. Tom Cruise is one; that character actor you recognize instantly but can't quite name is probably not an all-purpose public figure.”
2. Limited Purpose Public Figure: A private individual who, while not generally a public figure, is prominent in a particular field or on a particular issue. As a result, the individual is considered a public figure in regards to those specific activities or expertise.  Some examples of individuals deemed to be limited-purpose public figures by Texas courts include: a candidate for city counsel, because he thrust himself into the middle of a public controversy, a broadcast news reporter who hosted a segment that regularly appeared on television, and various others.

 Sean Salisbury is no Tom Cruise.

Actual Malice and Negligence

In Texas, a private figure plaintiff bringing a defamation lawsuit must prove that the defendant was at least negligent with respect to the truth or falsity of the allegedly defamatory statement. Public officials, all-purpose public figures, and limited-purpose public figures must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, i.e., knowing that the statement was false or recklessly disregarding its falsity.

For limited-purpose public figures, the actual malice standard extends only as far as defamatory statements involve matters related to the topics about which they are considered public figures. To return to our basketball example, the actual malice standard would extend to statements involving the player's basketball career; however, it would not extend to the details of his marriage.

Deadspin was talking some shit.  But was that shit bullshit?  And if so, did they know it was bullshit and then decided to spread that bullshit regardless?  Hmmmmm... 

Actual Malice Definition:

Courts have defined "actual malice" in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either

    * knowing that it is false; or

    * acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity.

It should be noted that the actual malice standard focuses on the defendant's actual state of mind at the time of publication.  

Now, we all know Deadspin be doing some crazy shit, but was this shit a not-so-crazy attempt to deep six the career of this no-talent assclown, with or without reference to the bullshit-levels of their words?

Analysis:

It is likely that the “Steak” will be considered a limited purpose public figure for this defamation suit because his appearance in regular segments on NFL Live and Sportscenter are analogous to the news reporter who the Texas courts classified as a limited purpose public figure.  As a limited purpose public figure, the Steak must prove (1) that the statements were made with regard to his career or are related to why he is semi-famous, and (2) that the such statements were made with actual malice (more than mere negligence). The Steak will try to prove that such defamatory statements were related the matters of about which the Steak is considered a public figure for, i.e. his role as a sportscaster/analyst.  It seems that all of the statements do concern his role as a sportscaster so, he will likely be successful on this point.  Second, the Steak must prove that the statements were made with actual malice (knowing the falsity or recklessly disregarding the statement’s validity).  This is a fact question for the jury to determine.  Without knowing the facts of the state of mind of the defendant, nor whether or not the statements written were in fact false, it is impossible to determine whether or not the defendant acted with actual malice… I need to know more than what is given in the complaint to adequately assess this.

Sure, Salisbury is kinda famous, and sure we all thought he kind of sucked when he was on ESPN, but did the mother fucker really snap a picture of his hang dang and show that shit around?  Pretty fucked up if he did...

But if he didn't snap a picture of his porkstick, then why is Deadspin talking some buuuullshit?  Is it because they hate the man?  Are they vested in his destroying his life, one absurdly hysterical post at a time?

Exhibit A:  Text photo of Salisbury's wrinkle-rope

Exhibit B:  Deadspin's declaration of penis-picture's existence

Exhibit C:  Deadspin's well-known ties to Osama Bin Laden, ownership of black crystal ball, and publicly-stated mission to destroy the world as we know it

I, Le Ginge, am totally flaccid at the moment, and so I am not prepared to comment any further.