OU Players arrested for cocaine

Dundermifflinite said:
What's AR have to say about this one?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen the actual posting, so I'm making a few assumptions here. Primarily, that there was nothing in it to indicate that it was false; i.e., nothing that would indicate it was an attempt at a joke. Assuming that' correct, it is almost certainly defamation.

Defamation is any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

The first thing is - are the players considered public figures or private figures. The difference is significant. If you are a public figure, you have to prove actual malice before you can get damages. In other words, you have to prove that the person who committed the defamation actually did so with the intent of harming you. If you are a private figure, you don't hae to prove malace - you only have to prove that the person issued an intentionally false communication that harmed your reputation, decreased respect for you or confidence in you, or caused others to harbor disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings toward you.

So...are the players public or private figures? Most likely, private...

A public figure is one whose name is so familiar to the public that it's virtually a household word. In sports, Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods would be examples of public figures. College players hardly rise to that level.

But that doesn't automatically mean that they are private figures. There is a category called limited-purpose public figures. These are people that are voluntarily injected into a public controversy and becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. This group also have to prove actual malice.

So, are the players limited-purpose public figures? Probably not. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, essentially, that a limited-purpose public figure is one that seeks public scrutiny in order to influence others on matters of public controversy. Hardly a college football player.

So, they are private figures. They don't have to prove malice - they simply have to prove that the false statement was made and that they were damaged.

Were they damaged? No way for me to tell - but I should think it wouldn't be hard to find people who read that post, believed it to be true, and then had "decreased respect, regard, or confidence" in the players, or had "disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against" the players.

Long story short (bet ya wished you'd jumped to the end of this post, huh?), I think the players have an excellent case. The fact that the poster used a news outlet's template is indicative of a desire to actually convince readers of the "legitimacy" of the posting.

Hope the poster has a good attorney, a helluva insurance policy, and lots of interest in seeing the inside of a courtroom...

 
The Drudgification of news in this country is pretty sad. Running with unsubstantiated internet rumor just to scoop a more reputable news outlet that might actually take the time to fact check is why this story got out of hand. The initial act crossed the line, but most people on these boards are here to have fun. Some people's version of fun is a little out there (like the fan in question) but you have to consider the format. Its not like he went shopping the story to TV and radio stations, it was taken as actual news by people who should have known better.

I think if anyone should be sued over this it should be those Texas radio stations that broadcasted the false information to the public.

 
macroboy said:
I really enjoy the "this guy isn't a real Husker fan, he's an idiot" comments. Having grown up in NE I knew a lot of real huskers fans that were complete idiots!! One does not negate the other.

A couple times a year we get a few "real fan" threads going and its kind of pathetic.

Bad choice? Yep!

Can he be sued? Technically yes, but it would be hard to prove any real damages.

Is he a Husker fan? I'm sure he is. He is a Husker fan that did something stupid. Anyone else here guilty of that?

The word fan comes from fanatic.
Click to expand...
Word for word pretty much what I was going to write.

His posting name sounds a little familiar..Maybe one of the reasons I quit going to that other site.. <_<

I could also be thinking of DarthGator on a gator board who was actually a good read (usually).

This is entertainment..It's fun to play out the fantasy of old friends recommending us to do stand-up but never having the nerve to actually get onstage.

And as far as the player's reputations being besmirched, I think the opposite occurred.

After reading about former OU quarterback (Charles Thompson) really-really being arrested for distributing Coke, Anyone who read any of the books about Switzers Sooners, probably halfway assumed most of them were still doing it..These two were quickly shown to be the exception.

Truthfully, In this day and age of testing, I seriously doubt that many high profile athletes are using or selling, but I've had at least one poster from this board PM me about suspicions about one or two starters from our team last season that are now trying to make NFL rosters.

Personally, I hope this guy isn't made an example of..He's sorta sad as it is.

I do hope people take notice and maybe we all will be more careful about the crap we write.

doc41e0c7aa80e47840334632.jpg


"Actual photo of James W. Conradt. This is probably the closest he has gotten to a pu&&y since 2003."

 
AR Husker Fan said:
...

The first thing is - are the players considered public figures or private figures. The difference is significant. If you are a public figure, you have to prove actual malice before you can get damages. In other words, you have to prove that the person who committed the defamation actually did so with the intent of harming you. If you are a private figure, you don't hae to prove malace - you only have to prove that the person issued an intentionally false communication that harmed your reputation, decreased respect for you or confidence in you, or caused others to harbor disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings toward you.

So...are the players public or private figures? Most likely, private...

A public figure is one whose name is so familiar to the public that it's virtually a household word. In sports, Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods would be examples of public figures. College players hardly rise to that level.

But that doesn't automatically mean that they are private figures. There is a category called limited-purpose public figures. These are people that are voluntarily injected into a public controversy and becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. This group also have to prove actual malice.

So, are the players limited-purpose public figures? Probably not. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, essentially, that a limited-purpose public figure is one that seeks public scrutiny in order to influence others on matters of public controversy. Hardly a college football player.

So, they are private figures. They don't have to prove malice - they simply have to prove that the false statement was made and that they were damaged.

Were they damaged? No way for me to tell - but I should think it wouldn't be hard to find people who read that post, believed it to be true, and then had "decreased respect, regard, or confidence" in the players, or had "disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against" the players.

Long story short (bet ya wished you'd jumped to the end of this post, huh?), I think the players have an excellent case. The fact that the poster used a news outlet's template is indicative of a desire to actually convince readers of the "legitimacy" of the posting.

Hope the poster has a good attorney, a helluva insurance policy, and lots of interest in seeing the inside of a courtroom...
Click to expand...
Forgive me for the stupid Question, but why is there a difference (Public figure vs. Private)?

Seems that Both parties would be injured.

I'm not sure they could be considered private figures... in their surrounding areas at least.

Who would you be more likely to recognize in a restaurant? Our starting QB or Baylor's head coach?

 
HUSKER 37 said:
Forgive me for the stupid Question, but why is there a difference (Public figure vs. Private)?

Seems that Both parties would be injured.
Click to expand...
I think it comes from common law - medievel England.

Its like getting hit in the face.

Its assault if you are walking down the street, minding your own business, and someone cold-c$%ks you.

Its legal if you are a boxer. You chose to enter the ring and you should expect someone might pop you one with lots of people watching.

 
This is all you guy's fault you know....

You didn't think anybody would remember the thread where somebody said "hey...let's make up a funny rumor about Mangino, post it and see how fast it takes those boobs from Kansas to read it and (since they are all simpletons) totally believe it!" Well...I know for a fact that Darth Husker read that and thought it was a cool idea. He just replaced Mangino with a couple of OU QB's (any other coach and he could have just used one...with Mangino it took two of them. I'm surprised he didn't have to throw a little DB in besides), laid his rumor out on top of a newspaper template and then waited for gullible OU fans to fall for it and for the laughs to roll in...play time in the monkey house type of stunt.

Actually...I made all that up....

There's a skill to parody and Darth ain't got it so I hope:

A: The dad (who seems to be a Class A dipsh*t) sues Darth for everything he has.

B: Darth turns out to be a homeless guy using a public library computer who doesn't own a pot to piss in.

or

C) Darth turns out to be OU's 3rd string QB... :clap

Now THAT would be jolly good parody!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
huKSer said:
HuskerfaninOkieland said:
More on Conradt

koco.com

Apparently he works for the University of Texas.
Click to expand...
How can we be sure you did not download a template of an OKC television station's website and post a phony article?

:dunno

"Trust, but verify" - Ronald Reagan

"If its on the internet, it must be true" - Texas radio stations
Click to expand...
The only media person I would trust would be that babe that used to be one of the news reporters on the Kearney station back in the mid/late 80's...nobody in Kearney lies or fabricates stories. She told me so.

 
Back
Top