Started By
Message
2
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:42 am to parkjas2001
quote:
for a libel lawsuit
Wrong. Libel is not spoken words. That is for written.
It would have to be slander. Also, in order to prove slander you have prove info was malicious and false.
Putting a name out there will then require the person named to PROVE it is false. That guy might sue, but if he doesn't...
This post was edited on 8/17/11 at 9:45 am
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:42 am to Chazz Reinhold
quote:
Anyway to listen on an iPhone?
WJOX has an app that broadcasts the radio station.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:43 am to Aubie Spr96
iheartradio is the best for iphone
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:44 am to bamasgot13
quote:
Wrong. Libel is not spoken words. That is for written.
I always get those confused.
Either way, my point is valid.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:45 am to Chazz Reinhold
quote:
Anyway to listen on an iPhone? Is he really coming on today?
download the app tunein (cost .99 cents)... get any station in the world...
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:45 am to mgmbamafan
or just get the ones you want fo rfree.
I ahve 790 and 680 in Atl on mine for nadda.
I ahve 790 and 680 in Atl on mine for nadda.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:46 am to TreyAnastasio
quote:
for a libel lawsuit.
quote:
only if its not true
He would be taking a massive risk by putting a name out there with no proof. If the NCAA had proof they would have acted on it. Does anyone seriously believe DS has the proof that the NCAA lacks?
This is nothing more than a last ditch effort to try and scare a witness into coming forward. I don't see a response from AU or anyone connected to the university, no matter what DS says or claims
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:49 am to The ChizMan Cometh
quote:
I don't see a response from AU or anyone connected to the university, no matter what DS says or claims
This ^
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:50 am to AUtigR24
AU doesnt respond to PF guests...they respond to the NCAA only.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:50 am to bamasgot13
quote:
order to prove slander you have prove info was malicious and false.
Thats going to depend on the status of the person he names, if the person is a public figure then sure, if its some average joe, then not the same burden.
Although this could be a matter of public concern becuase we're such backwards football fanatics.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:53 am to AUtigR24
I'll be shocked if anything comes of this. He'll continue to say "I know something" until something does (If anything does) break on Auburn so he can say "I told ya so". He's just an oddsmaker, he has nothing to lose.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:53 am to piggidyphish
is he claiming to have identified the bagman or just the witness to the bagman?
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:53 am to The ChizMan Cometh
I thought he was going to give a first and last name today.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:55 am to The ChizMan Cometh
quote:
He would be taking a massive risk by putting a name out there with no proof. If the NCAA had proof they would have acted on it. Does anyone seriously believe DS has the proof that the NCAA lacks?
How do you know the NCAA lacks it? DS has said they have it.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:56 am to parkjas2001
Danny never said he had proof.. just that someone who knows someone at the NCAA stated that the NCAA feels they know who the alledged bagman is... He said he will get the name, but MAY not disclose it...
Danny never said he was an investigator and had proof..... He actually said there was a 50/50 chance that the witness (bagman) would talk to the NCAA..
The NCAA has to find the proof...
Danny never said he was an investigator and had proof..... He actually said there was a 50/50 chance that the witness (bagman) would talk to the NCAA..
The NCAA has to find the proof...
This post was edited on 8/17/11 at 9:58 am
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:57 am to piggidyphish
quote:
Thats going to depend on the status of the person he names,
Burden of proof is different for slander of public figures, yes. However, anyone wanting to sue for slander still has to prove the info stated was false. You can't slander someone for telling the truth.
NOTE: I responded merely from a "I like to debate" standpoint, not from a "I think Danny brings it" standpoint.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:57 am to mgmbamafan
Now, Im def. gonna listen.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:58 am to bamasgot13
quote:
Burden of proof is different for slander of public figures, yes. However, anyone wanting to sue for slander still has to prove the info stated was false. You can't slander someone for telling the truth.
NOTE: I responded merely from a "I like to debate" standpoint, not from a "I think Danny brings it" standpoint.
Plus you can add enough, I BELIEVE which keeps slander out of the equation.... It has been reported, someon told me, I do not know if it is true... just listen to his previous sessions on Fbaum
Posted on 8/17/11 at 9:58 am to bamasgot13
quote:
Putting a name out there will then require the person named to PROVE it is false. That guy might sue, but if he doesn't...
If he doesn't sue, it doesn't mean shite. Slander cases are very hard to win. Even if you do win, who wants to invest that kind of time and money? Or make public certain private information about yourself? If the person he names is well known, that's another ball of wax, as well...
And if you do sue and win, what do you win? None of us know if Danny Sheridan even has a pot to piss in at this point. Maybe his assets are protected. Maybe he doesn't have anything substantial. At best, you're going to get an apology and a retraction that is buried on Page 582 of the Mobile PR.
Page 24 of 72
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News