re: This stupid Ole Miss / Rebel rags lawsuit

Rebel Rags MUST win this case, if it proceeds. Ole Miss fans better hope it "sticks" before a "friendly" jury, because to an outsider (of which I am one) it seems so venal and vindictive that anything short of a total win (through appeals) will be the well deserved source of embarrassment for OM.

quote:

---

Actually, you are wrong.

Defamation simply includes statements that reflect negatively on a person's integrity, morality, or character.

---

It's actually not that simple. In order to actually WIN a defamation case you have to:
1) prove statements were false
2) be able to show that THOSE statements have actually resulted in harm to one's reputation and/or business

Also, and no one is talking about it that I've seen on here any way, but the defamatory statement must be unprivileged in nature (Privileged statement means a witness testifying at trial who makes a statement that is both false and injurious will be immune to a lawsuit for defamation because testifying at trial is privileged). Doubt the testimony to NCAA would be considered privileged, but I'm sure the defense will argue that those statements are privileged (assuming they were false, which you've still yet to prove...only have proven variations, which are typical, allowable, and does not make the major points of the case false).

quote:

---

Commercial Disparagement - I agree that this is something that would be very hard to be proven. However, it could be argued that the intentional actions of defamation leading to the result of loss of revenue could fall within this law. Long shot and doubt it would happen.

---

yeah, but again given the circumstances surrounding the case, how do you anticipate RR being able to PROVE lost revenue is a result of this testimony and not a result of the prolonged investigation, poor on field results, etc? You can't. There are too many external factors to pin it on these statements as a singular factor.

quote:

---

Civil Conspiracy - You kind of went off point on this one. If they conspired to knowing make false statements and allegations in any attempt that would harm the reputation and character of the business, then it does not matter if their bigger agenda was another entity. Having said that, I'm curious to see how this would actually be argued.

---

I see zero possibility that it is ever PROVEN that a conspiracy took place. In a civil case you have to prove your case by a preponderance of evidence. Without phone records (good luck getting that), admission, or other evidence, this one is a nonstarter.

quote:

---

Having said that, the defamation charge will absolutely stick.

---

Might. I'd be stunned though. Have to prove they were knowingly false statements AND they caused harm. Might be able to prove they were false (if they were), but gonna be hard to prove those statements caused harm (b/c if you prove they were false then RR likely not disassociated.