Rutgers player to sue Imus for libel, slander, defamation, double secret defamation, etc
posted at 8:36 pm on August 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The damages aren’t specified but we know they’ve been “scarred for life” so we must be talking at least millions. And just coincidentally, they’re coming forward on the same day Imus got his own multimillion-dollar payout from CBS.
Anyone know offhand what the legal test is for when jokes/figures of speech become slanderous? I want to be sure the next time I call a friend a “douche” I don’t owe him any money.
Kia Vaughn, star center for the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team, has filed a lawsuit against Imus for libel, slander and defamation — the first civil suit to be filed against the former radio host. Vaughn is asking for monetary damages of an unspecified amount…
Today’s suit refers to terms used by Imus April 4 — including referring to women on the team as “nappy headed” — as “debasing, demeaning, humiliating, and denigrating” to Vaughn and her fellow players. “There’s no way these bigoted remarks should have seen the light of day,” Ancowitz told ABC News.
“Don Imus referred to my client as an unchaste woman. That was and is a lie.”
Groan. Something for the lawyers: aside from the “I was obviously kidding and everyone knew it” defense, would either of these work: (a) arguing that society has “evolved” to the point where being known as unchaste isn’t really harmful to one’s reputation and therefore no action for slander can lie, and/or (b) the fact that Imus didn’t identify any of the players by name and therefore their reputations have been damaged only insofar as one knows them to be members of the Rutgers women’s basketball team? The latter, I’m guessing, wouldn’t prevent a cause of action necessarily but would mitigate damages.
All moot anyway. He’s not about to rehash this incident in court when he’s trying to get his career back on track. As long as they’re not too unreasonable, they can name their price.
Go read the comments to the ABC article. This suit is practically PR for him.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Any sympathy I had for them, which would have been easily hidden by the head of a pin, is now officially gone.
JackStraw on August 14, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Much easier than a scholarship!
portlandbob on August 14, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Well, hopefully this case will be dismissed and set an example for unacceptably frivolous cases. Or not.
Spirit of 1776 on August 14, 2007 at 8:48 PM
They can sue you all they want, but what’s the point if you don’t have any money?
I think Imus deserves to get sued, especially in light of his own million dollar payout, which I don’t think he deserved.
Lawrence on August 14, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Imus, please set a precident and don’t settle. Stand up for the first ammendment.
ctmom on August 14, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Because someone that reads Drudge told her that Imus’ new contract is worth $40 million
…readers of teh Internets suspect the number to be somewhere in the $30-40 million range.
ScottMcC on August 14, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Will it get past summary judgement? Maybe the judge will realize it is bogus and not allow it to go forward.
Mallard T. Drake on August 14, 2007 at 8:55 PM
What’s the standard for who is and who is not a ho?
Considering this lawsuit, she probably is a ho.
Zach on August 14, 2007 at 8:58 PM
So she claims it was “debasing, demeaning, humiliating, and denigrating”… and wants to be compensated?
Golly – Imus was right!
T J Green on August 14, 2007 at 8:59 PM
This gal really, really needs to get over it.
Unless, of course, she wants the detailed history of every guy she’s ever kissed, held hands with or…??? laid out on FOX News every night. For months. In excruciating detail.
Greta Van Cesspool was born for this story.
wccawa on August 14, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Good grief, I’m so sick of money-grubbing lawyers I could spit.
At the same time, however, it will be interesting to see if the plaintiff can trot in some witnesses who will be able to testify (with a straight face) that they actually believed the members of the Rutgers basketball team were also “hos” on the side and had bad hair after hearing Imus’s remarks. I mean, if no one in the universe took Imus’s remarks seriously, where’s the defamation?
Moreover, when you join an enterprise such as a college basketball team haven’t you willingly thrust yourself into the public spotlight (and as a scholarship student, haven’t you done it for personal gain) and therefore given up some of your privacy rights?
And how does one define “an unchaste woman”? What will be the court’s threshold for this?
Rational Thought on August 14, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Oh dear, those poor poor women. Oh my! I simply couldn’t get by if someone called me a name. I just don’t know what I would do!!
Oh dear those poor nappy haired souls. Whatever shall they do?
Montana on August 14, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Scarred for life? So a couple of millions can remove scars?
Does Sharpton get a cut of the scar removal?
Kini on August 14, 2007 at 9:08 PM
I have no use for Imus, but PLEASE someone post a video on YouTube of these girls casually using “ho”.
RightWinged on August 14, 2007 at 9:10 PM
Well, just to be on the safe side, you may just want to use the terms “vaginal cleanser” instead.
Weight of Glory on August 14, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Falwell v Flynt
SouthernDem on August 14, 2007 at 9:13 PM
On a more serious note, I do think that in recent months there have been some very interesting “feelers” out there, trying to see just where they might have success in shutting some people up. If this “I’m-scarred-for-life” meme works, then this could be a soft version of the fairness doctrine. Savage is also running into another kind approach along these lines. We all need to keep a sharp eye.
Weight of Glory on August 14, 2007 at 9:16 PM
(a) arguing that society has “evolved” to the point where being known as unchaste isn’t really harmful to one’s reputation and therefore no action for slander can lie
No, it hasn’t devolved quite that far; hence the interest in Fred Thompson’s “colorful and far-ranging” background.
see-dubya on August 14, 2007 at 9:18 PM
Can I sue the plaintiff? I thought “denigrating” went out of use with the word “niggardly” and, since I’m sure I’m at least 3/768ths African-American, I am offended.
raybury on August 14, 2007 at 9:18 PM
Another example of “victim culture” at its best.
As JackStraw noted in the first post, what little sympathy I had for this group has vanished…at least for Kia Vaughn.
asc85 on August 14, 2007 at 9:24 PM
One of the claims made in this situation is that the n@ppy headed ho comments took away from the accomplishments of the Rutgers team.
This might make you think that the Rutger’s team actually won something. They didn’t.
So, this situation takes away from their accomplishments of being losers.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 14, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Can someone mount a class-action countersuit against them for Shameless Preposterous Moneygrubbing?
profitsbeard on August 14, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Yikes! If I had read the comments here first I would have never written my post on the subject, since it looked like I simply cribbed from you all. Great minds think alike.
baldilocks on August 14, 2007 at 9:36 PM
I think civil cases are silly but it would be great if the whole team wound up with the 20 mil he is getting from the network.
TheSitRep on August 14, 2007 at 9:41 PM
I guess that whole “we forgive Imus” noise was a lie then.
baldilocks on August 14, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Just sent allah two big storys about Billary and Teddy K
Interesting stuff. Stock opions for Billary and Food for oil for the Big Kennedy
William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 10:00 PM
MadisonConservative on August 14, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Ah, jeez. Oh, oh … the stupidity.
And lawyers wonder why people hate them.
The only person I’m more ashamed of than the stupid young woman who just threw away all the credibility and dignity she had … is the lawyer who agreed to take the case.
This might be the stupidest thing ever in a world full of stupid. Oh – and if this is lawsuit-worthy, could Michelle Malkin please start suing Kos et al for the stupid ping pong ball jokes. I think that means she’s “unchaste.”
Saddest part of all? NBC will settle for a nice chunk of change to make it go away. As usual … the lawyers will end up being the only winners.
What the hell is wrong with people today?
Professor Blather on August 14, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Does any one know what the (ALLEGEDLY) relationship is between Vaughn’s attourneys and Sharton’s attourneys? (ALLEGEDLY)
Is Vaughn going to prove to everyone that she is (ALLEGEDLY) unchaste.
Just exactly, what will (ALLEGEDLY) be Sharpton’s cut of this publicity (ALLEGEDLY) scam.
If it has anything to do with publicity, it’s got Sharpton’s finger prints all over it. No (ALLEGEDLY) about it.
Besides, what does Vaughn have to worry about. I mean, what with that lucrative WNBA future.
oakpack on August 14, 2007 at 10:53 PM
No … wait. It could get even funnier. Suppose (it won’t happen) that NBC decides to fight this, rather than fork over a 6 or low 7 figure settlement.
If it goes to trial, there is one defense to claims of libel or slander: truth.
Thus if the charge is that one or all of these women are “unchaste,” the only defense (other then the obvious – “c’mon, this is retarded” defense) would be to establish that they are, in fact, “hos.”
Get the joke? Theoretically at least, after all this pretending to care about dignity and self-respect, these young women might find themselves in a trial where the only question of fact revolves around their allegedly colorful and far-ranging sex lives.
I hope they’re all confirmed virgins. If not, this could get funny. If this ever gets to a question of fact (it won’t, but imagine), then you could find these people spending millions to decide whether, in fact, these stupid girls are “hos.” (I guess they’ll have to start by finding a satisfactory definition).
This stupidity, from all parties involved, has now reached epic proportions.
And I have no idea how they’ll argue who is and isn’t “nappy headed.” I’m not even sure what it means.
Jesus wept. If you’re Christian, get ready, kids – the Rapture is obviously close at hand.
Professor Blather on August 14, 2007 at 10:54 PM
So many thoughts, so little interest.
1. Was the plaintiff one of the girls who vowed “to put this behind” her?
2. Since Imus was working for CBS when he said it, CBS will have to defend the suit and will probably have to pay the damages, if there are any.
3. The suit is based on the assumption that “ho” means “wh*ore”. I would call Mr. Snoop Dog himself as a defense witness to give expert testimony on what “ho” really means. Then I would call the CEO of Columbia, Capitol, etc., and every other major record producer who has ever made a red cent off any song with the word “ho” in it and have him testify as to what it means. THIS SHOULD BE FUN. Sure as hell beats listening to Hillary screech for another 15 months.
4. This plaintiff could walk into a room with a million people in it, and NO ONE would know who she was. If she has been damaged, its purely a self inflicted wound. “Look at me . . . I’m one of the nappy headed hos Imus was talking about. Give me money.”
Labamigo on August 14, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Allow my to help a brutha out.
baldilocks on August 14, 2007 at 10:57 PM
my=me
baldilocks on August 14, 2007 at 10:57 PM
So after suing Imus for calling her a “Nappy Headed Hoe” she’ll have turn around to sue everyone thats going to start calling her a “Money Grubbing Hoe”
mlong on August 14, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Word.
Professor Blather on August 14, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Actually, word to your mother. Or something. I just read that a little more carefully. Pretty interesting. Thank you.
So …. since I personally think it looks hideous when Black women artificially straight their hair (or wear blond wigs, for Pete’s sake) … from me, wouldn’t “nappy headed” be a compliment?
I’m so white. And so confused.
But at least I’m not a ho.
Professor Blather on August 14, 2007 at 11:09 PM
B-i-en-gee-oh.
Unless we have a few shark attacks, a good terrorist attack, or some missing pretty blond girls … I think you just predicted the short-term media obsession.
If this girl played truth-or-dare in eighth grade, you’ll hear about it.
This is like stupid to the stupidth power. Stupid cubed.
Professor Blather on August 14, 2007 at 11:13 PM
If this plays out, we will unfortunately hear about the lives of the girls that didn’t want any part of this.
But I’m sure that’s just fine with Fat Albert Sharpton.
oakpack on August 14, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Come on Jack. If it wasn’t for them he’d have to actually work for the $20M he just got. All they want is their fair cut…;-)
AP here’s what I picked up in my travels:
TheBigOldDog on August 14, 2007 at 11:34 PM
She files the lawsuit the day that Don Imus wins a $20 Million breach of contract settlement from CBS. Hmmm.
SoulGlo on August 14, 2007 at 11:42 PM
I’d disagree strongly with the “public person” claim no matter how undoubtedly you’d state it – unless you really believe every college athlete in a popular sport qualifies.
Your first point is interesting, however. I’d argue that not only did she not sustain monetary damages – its likely that she’s actually profited – or will profit – financially from the notoriety.
Ironically, even if I’m right (I am) that she wasn’t a “public person” under NY Times v. Sullivan when Imus made his remarks … her current litigation efforts almost certainly DO qualify her under that standard.
It’s certainly happened before:
Professor Blather on August 14, 2007 at 11:46 PM
For the record, the fact that we’re discussing “nappy headed” …. and your screen name is “Soul Glo” … just made me laugh so hard I shot Bud Light right out my nose.
Professor Blather on August 14, 2007 at 11:47 PM
We can all agree that the Rutgers women have overplayed their hand at this point. Coach Stringer shamefully wrote her memoirs to capitalize on the uproar. Al Sharpton upped his media status briefly as a result. He actually hosted hardball and became uber-ubiquitous in the weeks following Imusgate.
But in many ways, I think the ultimate losers were the basketball players. They can never have the simple athletic experience, which would be great. Collegiate athletics are a great source of lifelong happiness. The seniors on the team have lost that for sure.
I do feel sorry for them. I think they were thrust into a very confusing at volatile situation with no choice. To ignore the pressures placed upon them by many in the media is shortsighted. I think when you’re 20 years old, it’s easy to be swayed by public opinion.
I have always been one to stand up against the grain with a smile on my face. It’s the way I operate. I have challenged racial stereotypes all of my life. I’m used to pissing off blacks and whites. If I were normal, would I be able to ignore the pressure to strike a blow for racial and gender justice? I don’t know.
Look at our politicians and celebrities who hold press conferences over any public slight. We have become a very wussified nation. TR Knight, John Edwards, Ann Coulter, Laurie David, Paris Hilton, and a boatload of others have all responded to the public because of unflattering news events.
The Rutgers women are guilty of having over zealous PR people buzzing in their ears. But to ignore the fact they were horribly insulted for no reason is just selfish and blackhearted.
Unfortunately many people have suggested that these women deserve no sympathy because of the failings of African-American culture as-a-whole. That’s just silly. They were insulted as a team, not as a race.
Imus referred to them as “hardcore hos” and “nappy-headed hos.” Despite the contextual misapplication of these phrases, to defile their womanhood is pretty low. I don’t know any 20-year-old woman who is not hypersensitive about how they are perceived.
Tell your wife how slutty she looks next time you’re at church. Go ahead, try it. To call a woman ugly and vile in public is an insult forever felt.
If you are unsympathetic to a group of women who are painfully besmirched in front of the world, in the midst of what should be personal victories, you need to look into your soul.
If some in the stands at your daughter’s championship game called her team a bunch of manly, ugly, prostitutes…how would you respond?
I cannot stand racial injustice. I cannot stand racial double standards. But I will not compromise my soul in reaction to either. I am still humane enough to feel pain for someone who might otherwise annoy me.
I do not support this lawsuit. I wish people had thicker skin. But I also think a lot of people who decry racial double standards are doing a lot of whining of their own.
***Rant out. Typos and syntax errors included.***
The Race Card on August 14, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Joke I received today which kinda fits:
Having already downed a few power drinks, she turned around, faced him, looked him straight in the eye and said, “Listen up, Buddy. I screw anybody, any time, anywhere, your place, my place, in the car, front door, back door, on the ground, standing up, sitting down, naked or with clothes on, dirty, clean . . . it doesn’t matter to me. I’ve been doing it ever since I got out of college and I just love it.”
Eyes now wide with interest, he responded, “‘No kidding. I’m a lawyer, too. What firm are you with?”
Kimmer on August 15, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Can lesbians be “ho’s”, or are “ho’s” merely straight and easily bedded by
rappersstraight men? (Yes, I’m running fast and loose with the stereotype of a female basketball player being a lesbian).SouthernGent on August 15, 2007 at 12:34 AM
Sueing Imus for slander is like throwing mud at a pig.
right2bright on August 15, 2007 at 1:48 AM
I can’t stand Imus, but this is a load of crap. I hope she doesn’t see a dime. Money grubbing loser. I guess they really didn’t accept the apology huh?
Highrise on August 15, 2007 at 2:01 AM
“The Blacker the College..The Sweeter the Knowledge”
DfDeportation on August 15, 2007 at 2:10 AM
SouthernDem,
Yup. They’re public figures and Imus was cracking wise. Aside from that, no one would believe, because of Imus’ statement, that she’s a prostitute. Being offended/insulted is not actionable.
Pablo on August 15, 2007 at 2:26 AM
My wife (the attorney) tells me that using sexual inuendo as part of defamation means that the woman does not have to prove damages or that her reputation is tarnished. It’s automatically assumed so, at least in our state. So would comments concerning a sexual transmitted disease. Such comments are prima facia defamation and place Imus at a serious disadvantage in the suit against him.
Add the fact that this cost him his job, and things are not looking up for Imus.
Claiming that he was kidding isn’t going to save him, I think. It is one thing to claim satire if the target is famous (see Sullivan), another when the target is not a celebrity or famous. I’m not sure that being on a championship team is enough to evoke Sullivan. I think not as the woman is not a “household name,” even now, or if she is one, it is because of Imus’ remarks.
If Sullivan does not apply, then Imus doesn’t have a lot of choices. He can attempt to negotiate a settlement for it to go away, or take his chances in court as to how much he is going to have to pay. But, I predict that he IS going to have to pay for his remarks.
georgej on August 15, 2007 at 2:47 AM
We Republicans are no less partisan than the Dems. We castigate them for their own blind allegiance, but in many cases we also fail to be objective.
There is a lot of racial equivocating that goes on within our ranks. Just because they are wrong does not mean we should not work extra hard to be right.
There is a lot of talk about these girls that basically treats them as if they chose to be singled out. Yes, their 2 hour press conference should have ended things. No, they should not file civil suits.
But many of the commenters seem to offer no sympathy. Amazing…and illustrative.
Remember how pissed off we all were when they made these racist, sexist slurs against Michelle Malkin? Of course MM is a super badass and can handle herself. But I personally was pissed off on her behalf.
Are these girls any less deserving of your understanding…just because the people who support them are crackpots?
Ask yourselves, if Imus were some ultra-lefty who made similar slurs about one of our team, would you really be all in a snit about the first amendment? Please.
Expect no mercy if you have none to offer.
The Race Card on August 15, 2007 at 3:20 AM
He gets sued, she looks like an opportunistic golddigger.
Win/Win.
Sympathy? No. He’s a worthless chump and she knows what she’s doing. Screw ‘em both. They deserve each other.
forged rite on August 15, 2007 at 3:39 AM
Denigrating? Did she just use the ‘N’ word?
A ho is someone who will do anything for money. I knew someone who had a friend who was a ho. An old white guy used to pay her money just to run around in front of him. Well, with no clothes on, but she could have been chaste. That is chaste, not ‘chased’. Why did I have to call the old guy an ‘old white guy’? Because I must tell the truth, he was a nappy headed old white guy, a real ho man.
I once dreamed of burning myself with hot McD coffee, but it is easier to have Don Imus call me a Ho. Don, call me a HO. Call me nappy headed but I could use the money.
This is a gold mine. Why do some people have all the luck. Call me nappy face. Call me nappy toes. Call me nappy ho toe face pig dog. Be my friend too
entagor on August 15, 2007 at 4:06 AM
What? you mean Imus wasn’t being serious? Crap! here all this time I thought they were really nappy headed ho’s…
Would be an interesting discovery process… or cross examination(s)… depending on the exact level of ho-ness… if, in fact, she is or ever was a “ho”. I feel like it’s christmas-time…
BadBrad on August 15, 2007 at 5:44 AM
If he does settle, then won’t all the players line up to sue him? I’m not familiar with the way these things work.
He apologized, kissed everyone’s @ss including Reverend Al, and lost his job. If he has to pay this chick millions of dollars on top of all that, I’ll be disgusted – but not surprised.
Dork B. on August 15, 2007 at 5:57 AM
If memory serves, Michelle has had much worse written about her (frequently). I won’t recount every particular instance. But I will point out that she has yet to file any lawsuits, to my knowledge.
SailorDave on August 15, 2007 at 6:43 AM
Sorry, The Race Card. I see you made the same point in your post, albeit from a slightly different tack.
SailorDave on August 15, 2007 at 6:46 AM
And, that’s a shame.
JAY-Z, Snoop, Dr. Dre and 50 cent say all black women are ho’s. It must be true since Al and Jessee haven’t called any of them to task.
BacaDog on August 15, 2007 at 7:37 AM
What is funny about the whole thing is both expressions:
Ho and nappy headed are terms that where coined by and used by blacks,
Reco – nize! Be- yauch!
TheSitRep on August 15, 2007 at 7:50 AM
I’m sure she has been called much worse, but when a rich, white guy is joking around it’s time to be a legal Ho’. Hip-hop culture made the term popular so why not go to the source for some race related cash?
With all the free college educations New Jersey has given away due to skin color over the last forty years, there is no end in sight to victim hood and divisiveness. Jackson/Sharpton’s “dream” compared to M.L.King’s.
Hening on August 15, 2007 at 8:00 AM
And you weren’t even drinking Bud Light!
mikeyboss on August 15, 2007 at 8:23 AM
This woman will be protected by the media and reffered to as “the victim”, I’m guessing, just like that crazy stripper that accused the Duke Lacrosse team. I would love to see her held up to public ridicule, humiliated. And her case dismissed.
Why? Because it’s a frivolous lawsuit – she was one person in a group of people who were called a name. She wasn’t slandered, she did not suffer. She s greedy and this is an insult to actual victims of racism. I wonder: was she among those who accepted his personal apology?
Dork B. on August 15, 2007 at 8:24 AM
Oops, I re-read the post, and her name is there. I’m sorry…but this just set me off. She’s proving herself to be more than merely an unchaste woman. I hope her teammates are ashamed of her. Shame on you, Kia Vaughn!
Dork B. on August 15, 2007 at 8:30 AM
One final thng: Thanks for posting the link to the comments on the ABC article, Allah. They nail this greedy oppourtunist so much more accurately than I can.
Dork B. on August 15, 2007 at 8:42 AM
We can now sue someone over hurt “feelings”! C’mon!
sabbott on August 15, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Suing in and of itself defeats the purpose, n’est c’est pas? The very definition of ‘ho’ is: “will take money in exchange for honor.”
She makes it worse by coming forward to sue now, instead of coming out with “chaste-woman outrage” as soon as it happened.
That being said, though, any public figure who called ME a
‘ho’ on national airwaves – joke or not – might have even more to worry about than a lawsuit. Some women don’t take kindly to jokes like that. But I’d settle for a public, extended, humiliating apology on the air.
inviolet on August 15, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Humiliating to the perp, that is. “Outrage makes me incoherent!”
inviolet on August 15, 2007 at 9:54 AM
Wonder if Jackie Chiles is her lawyer? (That’s a Seinfeld reference for those who didn’t get that).
CP on August 15, 2007 at 10:10 AM
She not suing for th description “nappt-headed.”
Every similar situation isn’t perfectly analogous and, therefore, shouldn’t require the same reaction.
There was sympathy for these women (at least from me) for being dragged into a more public spotlight by Imus; he did it simply because he didn’t like the way they looked. (And he has some nerve talking about anyone’s looks.) But Imus apologized and he and his wife had a long private talk session with the players and their coach. In the end, the women accepted that apology. (Have any of the persons who made those disgusting comments to Michelle apologized?)
Now we know that the grand magnanimous gesture of accepting the apology was a sham for Vaughn and that’s why there’s no sympathy for the woman any more. If Vaughn goes through with this–she will have made Imus out to have been a prophet–at least about her.
baldilocks on August 15, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Need coffee.
“She not suing for being called ‘nappy-headed.’”
baldilocks on August 15, 2007 at 12:04 PM
I have just found the perfect defense strategy for Imus.
In the new world of hate crime, it is the reason you commit a crime that is the real crime.
If you rob a bank without hatred in your heart, that is not a hate crime. It may not even be a crime at all if the press likes you.
If you rob a bank because of a seething hatred for bankers, you may have committed a hate crime. The press will dissect your hatred based upon demographics and render the final judgement of whether you posess evil hatred, misguided hatred, or justified hatred.
Did Imus indeed possess evil hatred? We all must admit Imus is a bit nappy headed. No one wants to talk about it, but the nap is there. There is a slight possibility Imus is a self-hater.
However Imus has consistently acted like a wannabee (Detroit slang for white guys with nap envy). He loaded his program with black gospel music and often used wannabe slang.
I think personally Imus is just nice guy who felt somewhat responsible for slavery and thought he could make up for it by acting like a bro. However, Imus made the mistake of top loading his show with white ivy league media ho’s who although they may be ho’s they do not be bro’s, so Imus learned his bro talk from WaPo and NYT columnists.
Were these media ho’s smart enough to set Imus up for a fall just because Imus is a genuine wannabe and not a fake wannabe like them?
I suggest this because it was so so so obvious that Imus was not trying to slander, libel or express hatred for those females. But his media bro’s took him apart when Imus walked out on a limb and discovered he was not nappy enough to use words like nappy in front of media ho’s.
I still feel sorry for Imus and his real bro too. And that little religious sidekick. However I am jealous about all the money he is getting.
Imus should argue that it was not a hate crime, and therefore the slander and libel charges are unconstitutional based upon the laws of Sweden and Norway. He could also get some genetic testing just in case he has enough nap to be allowed to use the word nap without getting sued
entagor on August 15, 2007 at 1:25 PM
No way! I’m not claiming him! :-)
baldilocks on August 15, 2007 at 1:28 PM
“If he has to pay this chick millions of dollars on top of all that, I’ll be disgusted – but not surprised.”
Why? Imus sits at a microphone and speaks to millions of people. He has the defacto power to destroy people’s reputations, their livelihoods, and their privacy. And he routinely exercises it. He called this woman and her teammates WHORES. That means he publicly claimed that these women performed sexual acts with strangers for money. And unless these women are in fact prostitutes, i.e., women who exchange sex for money, then he has defamed them. Period.
What’s more he gets paid millions to do this, to insult people personally; to call young women athlete whores.
Imus made the choice to call these women whores. Nobody made him. But when he did, he publicly proclaimed to millions that these women exchange sex for money, and he used racist language to boot. In my state, making sexual innuendos about someone, is DEFAMATION. Unlike most instances of defamation where one has to prove that the remark resulted in a loss of income or other financial damage, in this case, no damage needs to be proven because it is considered to be defamation on its face. His only defense is to prove that these women are, in fact, prostitutes. Otherwise, the only thing a jury will discuss is HOW BIG the award will be.
“Remember how pissed off we all were when they made these racist, sexist slurs against Michelle Malkin? Of course MM is a super badass and can handle herself. But I personally was pissed off on her behalf.”
Look up NY Times v. Sullivan. Michelle, is a columnist, TV celebrity, and a public figure. It is nearly impossible for her to sue for defamation. That’s the way it is.
These women were not public figures and they are protected against defamation in common law and by statute just as you and I (or our daughters) are.
Now, this is not to say that I agree with forcing Imus off the air, or him having to grovel and kiss Sharpton’s ass. In fact, I think Imus made a serious mistake in doing so. Sharpton needs to be taken down a few pegs, not elevated by having Imus publicly kiss his heinie.
But if these women choose to sue Imus for calling them whores on nationally syndicated radio and cable TV, I have no objection as it is their right to protect their reputations.
georgej on August 15, 2007 at 3:33 PM
I agree that different situations warrant different responses. In my esitmation, Michelle Malkin has been treated much worse by her detractors than the Rutgers team.
I also agree that filing this civil suit is very self-serving. Imus went a long way to demonstate his contrition. And if she was unwilling to accept his apology, I believe she should have been upfront about that.
She should not sue. She should simply point out that Imus is hardly the one to discuss looks or hair, and move on. She may have seen an opportunity because she was one of the five players on court when Imus made his remarks. And she has tats, so she may feel a bit more personally singled out.
Kia Vaughn is reported to want to start a foundation which advocates on behalf of victims of verbal abuse. That sounds like a front for a cushy job as CEO of her own non-profit.
I disagree, however, that there was ever much sympathy for these women. There was just as much equivocating at the outset as there is now. Longtime Imus friend, Bo Dietl, argued early on that the words nappy-headed and ho originated in black neighborhoods and are therefore ok to use in reference to the team. Many cold hearts furthered that same line of logic.
How do you know what Kia Vaughn has been called? On what do you base that assumption? Don’t answer…it’s obvious.
To suggest that it is ok to use offensive, abusive language against a group of young athletes because of rap music is preposterous. To suggest that because Kia Vaughn is black that she has been called “much worse” is racially retarded.
None of the women in my family has ever been spoken to in this manner. Your view of black life is steeped in Al Sharpton appearances and rap videos. There are millions of people who don’t live by those belligerent standards.
If I called your wife, daughter or mother a whore, would that be ok? It must be. It’s a well recognized fact that all white women have been called whores, right?
Regarding all of the free college educations New Jersey has given away due to skin color over the last forty years, would you please quantify that number? And when you do, please give the ethnic and racial breakdown of all recipients of state college aid, federal assistance and affirmative action recipients. Also you might want to look at the number of kids who attend JCs before going on to four year schools. Then when you can prove a disparate ratio of state funding for college students of different races, as opposed to economic need, then you can get off of your racial highhorse.
Clealy, many people have become so beleagured by racial double standards that they are unwilling or unable to recognize genuinely offensive acts and language. I can understand that. The boy who cried wolf has nothing on racial demogogues like Al Sharpton.
But some people have used Sharpton’s chicanery as a veil to their own racial biases and or prejudices. Sharpton and his ilk’s BS vindicates their own race based syllogisms.
Exit question: Have you ever used any of the following words: Wetback? Spic? Nigger? Kike? Dyke? Faggot? Chink? Cracker?
If you have, did you mean it?
I am guessing that there are more than a few of you out there who have used every word on the list and others. And I’m sure there are boatloads who have friends and family who use these words in their presence.
Rant out. Lunch in.
The Race Card on August 15, 2007 at 5:55 PM
I will assume that you’re not talking to me personally.
baldilocks on August 15, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Spot on! I too felt bad for these girls, they were just playing ball and having fun and then got dumped on with this crap. However, Imus (who I agree is an odd-looking bird himself) is not exactly someone I place a lot of creed in to determine what I think of anyone. They accepted his apology, which they didn’t have to do and he didn’t have to give. Noone believes they’re “hos” b/c Imus, some dingdong who doesn’t even know them personally, said so (at least anyone with half a brain).
Your wife is right. At common law, using such language is defamation per se. Since Imus said this, and b/c it pertains to certain subject matter (i.e. sexual unchastity, STDs, etc.), damages are presumed.
hollygolightly on August 15, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Oh, and have said many times over the years that the prominence of Sharpton and Jackson sprung up from white guilt rather that some sort of annointing bestowed by black Americans. Imus’s (et al.) perception of black people is indeed colored by the antics of those two.
However, right remains right. None of us would be talking about this again if Ms. Vaughn hadn’t chosen to go back on her word that she had accepted Imus’s apology–if she had not chosen the big, easy money over her personal integrity.
This fact is the only thing which has defamed Ms. Vaughn–forget the other stuff, either from Imus or others.
baldilocks on August 15, 2007 at 7:30 PM
“Exit question: Have you ever used any of the following words: Wetback? Spic? Nigger? Kike? Dyke? Faggot? Chink? Cracker?…I am guessing that there are more than a few of you out there who have used every word on the list and others. And I’m sure there are boatloads who have friends and family who use these words in their presence.
Rant out. Lunch in.”
The Race Card on August 15, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Since the end of your “rant” sounds like you’re addressing all of us: Answer to your question: NO. Not a single one of those racial slurs has ever passed my lips. Ever. In my life. And NONE of my friends and family would use them either.
For someone whose “rant” is supposedly against prejudice you are making a lot of assumptions, sir or ma’am. I believe you owe this board an apology for your basically assuming that “more than a few” of us (your words, remember) are racists.
[Your]rant in, [my] lunch out.
inviolet on August 15, 2007 at 8:33 PM
correction: have never used the sexual-orientation slurs either.
Interesting handle you have, BTW. Would it be rude to ask how you came to choose it?
inviolet on August 15, 2007 at 8:35 PM
I can only imagine how annoying it is for somebody else to read what I wrote. Because just looking back at the length of my last rant makes me tired.
If I have offended anyone I apologize. Flat out. That was not my intention.
However my point still stands. Racial bigotry is not outside the norm. In fact, because of such rampant political correctness, I believe there is an uptick in these sentiments. Kudos to you if you have not used such language. Certainly you don’t think everyone is so couth.
Still, I was not addressing everyone at HotAir. The assertion is silly. I would not be a Republican if I thought the party platform promoted racism, sexism or bigotry.
Rather I was addressing the people who I believe use instances such as Imusgate to slip in unrelated, unnecessarily racially tinged rhetoric. Your sober response does not seem to put you in that group. You should not be offended. You were not being addressed.
Perhaps I have been unclear. It’s very easy when you ramble as much as I do. I am human and subject to sounding like a jerk at times. In this case, perhaps I do.
The thing that won me over to the right was the honesty and unflinching assertion of its core values. I love it when people stand up for righteousness. Most Republicans appreciate capitalism, rule of law, small government and low taxes. So do I.
At the same time, if I suspect or detect something afoul in my midst, I will investigate…or just spout off. If I offend a few people, or ruffle some feathers…sorry. That is not the first or last time.
I appreciate your honesty. And if you speak for others who were equally offended, I direct my apology in their direction as well.
The Race Card on August 15, 2007 at 11:19 PM
I don’t detect a glimmer of rudeness. I could take lessons.
Quite honestly, when I registered, I was intoxicated and giddy over registration being open. I thought for about 2 seconds about what I should use. And in a fit of unoriginality I went with what I was already using at some other sites.
I am a recovering addict – people watching addict. And race relations provid a provocative and interesting backdrop for my addiction.
What you can be sure of is that I am an equal opportunity annoyer. I will be in sync with you one day and have you pulling out your hair the next. If you think you have it bad, you should catch me in a room full of minority journalists or marching the wrong direction at liberal rallies.
I don’t have much of a message, but more often than not I come to the same conclusion. America is a land truly touched by God. I think aside from our prosperity, our ethnic and cultural dynamics set us apart from most other nations in the world.
The Race Card on August 15, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Uh no. That particular remark was directed at Hening on August 15, 2007 at 8:00 AM.
But now I’m scared. I got the memo: Female bloggers kick ass!
>
The Race Card on August 15, 2007 at 11:46 PM
and on that note…
The Race Card limps off battered and broken.
The Race Card on August 15, 2007 at 11:47 PM
TRC: I think I like you :-)
baldilocks on August 15, 2007 at 11:54 PM
The Race Card on August 15, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Wow. That was a really nice post. And nicely put (re: all your points). I’m sorry if I jumped to conclusions about who your post was addressing. Like being accused of being a ‘ho,’ having a perception that one is being accused of racism can send one off the outrage cliff.
I don’t have much of a message, but more often than not I come to the same conclusion. America is a land truly touched by God. I think aside from our prosperity, our ethnic and cultural dynamics set us apart from most other nations in the world.
Very well said.
inviolet on August 16, 2007 at 7:08 AM
Cheers.
The Race Card on August 16, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Comment pages: