re: This stupid Ole Miss / Rebel rags lawsuit

quote:

---

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.

---

If the defamatory statement is about a private figure and a matter of private concern, the defendant may be held to a negligence standard. I would assume that RR would likely be a private person for this purpose, and the matter of giving merchandise to an athlete would be a private concern. However, the allegations are that the named defendants knowingly made false statements, so the plaintiff will have to prove defendants made intentionally false statements. That is a pretty straight forward issue, but may not be easy to actually prove. In this situation negligence is not really an issue as to the core issue regarding statements that the football player-defendants received free stuff from RR. Those statements were made truthfully or with knowledge of falsity, though falsity may not be provable.

If false statements were made in writing (libel), or can be deemed slander per se (oral statements that by their content are such, in this context, that would harm one's business reputation for things like honesty and integrity or competence), presumed damages may be permitted, no proof of actual damages required, though this is perhaps still a gray area constitutionally. I would agree that actual damages would be very difficult to prove. But in any event, proof of actual damage may not be required.

There also may be some statute of limitations problems for the plaintiff, since the statute of limitations for defamation in Mississippi is one year. Depending on when the statements were made and when plaintiffs learned of the allegedly defamatory statements, or should have learned of them, some or all of the claims could be could be time-barred.