Return to Baseball Leftovers

Ozzie shoots off at the mouth again

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby RugbyD » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:13 pm

mikhayl wrote:
RugbyD wrote:For Ozzie's statements to be slanderous, they have to cause harm to the reputation of JM (hurt feelings don't count). All of this, by the way, assumes that Ozzie was specifically claiming that JM enjoys relations with men. If there is nothing wrong with being gay, then there is no harm to the reputation of JM, and therefore no slander. If you think this was slander, then by default you must think that there is something wrong with being gay.


What I bolded is not necessarily true. Many states, I'm not sure about IL, do not offer the same legal protections to homosexuals that they do to heterosexuals. For example, many states permit employment discrimination against homosexuals. Depending on where JM worked, he could legally be fired over his sexuality. Absurd, but true.

You are generally correct, but it does not apply to this specific case. If JM was gay, then Ozzie was being truthful and not sladerous. If JM is not gay and got axed b/c of what Ozzie said, the burden would be the employer to offer some reasonable basis for believing that JM was gay. I have yet to hear anyone claim the JM actually likes men b/c Ozzie said so.
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5589
(Past Year: -2)
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Postby The Loveable Losers » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:21 pm

I think that we can all agree that JM is indeed a douchebag though. ;)
Hope springs eternal
grows like ivy on the vine
then dies in the fall

--Haiku for a Cubs Fan, The Loveable Losers
The Loveable Losers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 7521
(Past Year: 231)
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Cubs Win!!! Cubs Win!!!

Postby markj11 » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:22 pm

The Loveable Losers wrote:I think that we can all agree that JM is indeed a douchebag though. ;)
Last edited by markj11 on Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I ain't askin' nobody for nothin, If I can't get it on my own. - Charlie Daniels
markj11
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2102
(Past Year: -10)
Joined: 3 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Wright here

Postby jnormy » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:23 pm

RugbyD wrote:You are generally correct, but it does not apply to this specific case. If JM was gay, then Ozzie was being truthful and not sladerous.


I'm not arguing the slander part of this, but the term "truthful" to me is not correct here. Ozzie was clearly intending it as a derogatory term. If someone came upon a black man in the street and screamed the "N word" at him, I don't think he'd be justified in saying it was ok because he was simply telling the truth.

Slanderous, I don't know. But Ozzie wasn't being truthful, he was being hateful... :-t
jnormy
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1324
(Past Year: 31)
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Zito is God » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:27 pm

markj11 wrote:
Zito is God wrote:If you can honestly tell me that the scenario I proposed, where you are ridiculed on national television would not hurt you at all, well, then I'd call you a liar my friend.


Zito, would it be considered slander if someone called you a liar on the internet were billions of people could see it if you really are not liar.


By definition yes, because it is defaming my name without just evidence. I wouldn't do anything about it considering slander is usually reserved as a crime for politicians and not for everyday people (since it happens a million times a day to regular people), but yes it would be considered slander.
Sean Tracey has my apologies, we all know Ozzie Guillen is an idiot. I'm rooting for you!
Zito is God
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 4115
(Past Year: -54)
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Secretly advising Cashman.

Postby markj11 » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:30 pm

Zito is God wrote:
markj11 wrote:
Zito is God wrote:If you can honestly tell me that the scenario I proposed, where you are ridiculed on national television would not hurt you at all, well, then I'd call you a liar my friend.


Zito, would it be considered slander if someone called you a liar on the internet were billions of people could see it if you really are not liar.


By definition yes, because it is defaming my name without just evidence. I wouldn't do anything about it considering slander is usually reserved as a crime for politicians and not for everyday people (since it happens a million times a day to regular people), but yes it would be considered slander.


It's ok, the Cafe is "a whole bunch of people I don't know" so it doesn't bother me. :-)
I ain't askin' nobody for nothin, If I can't get it on my own. - Charlie Daniels
markj11
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2102
(Past Year: -10)
Joined: 3 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Wright here

Postby RugbyD » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:34 pm

Zito is God wrote:
RugbyD wrote:
Zito is God wrote:
RugbyD wrote:
Zito is God wrote:I love all these "free speech" jokers looking at themselves as martyrs and believe they are protecting the bill of rights.

Lets get one thing straight here, I am a extreme liberal, I believe in civil rights and liberties and everything else like freedom of speech or religion. What Ozzie is doing is also in our little law book, and it is called "slander".

Take this example: Lets say my dad owns Fox Networks, so I ask him to get me a free 15 minutes of airtime and I go on saying this: "(insert your real name here) is a m$%&*r f$%#*(g moron ladies and gentlemen of America. He is a retarded fag wh can't man up to his words, hes a sissy with little girl arms and he smells bad when he walks up and down the street, its very gross." And lets say I do this 3 times a week (about as much as Ozzie shoots off nowadays), are you honestly telling me you won't throw your martyr attitude for free speech in the trash and go crying to the cops for harrasment and slander?! Teah, thought so.

Either you don't know what slander means, or you think being gay is bad/wrong. Which is it?


Are you blind or just responding to another post? Where in the world did I indicate I think being gay is wrong?

Now, as for slander:

Slader - The public uttering of a false statement that harms the good reputation of another. The statement must be made to, or within the hearing of, persons other then the defamed party.

I think you don't know what slander means my friend. Calling someone a fag on national TV is most certainly slander, if not harrasment.

lets use the working definition from legaldictionary.com:

oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed.

For Ozzie's statements to be slanderous, they have to cause harm to the reputation of JM (hurt feelings don't count). All of this, by the way, assumes that Ozzie was specifically claiming that JM enjoys relations with men. If there is nothing wrong with being gay, then there is no harm to the reputation of JM, and therefore no slander. If you think this was slander, then by default you must think that there is something wrong with being gay.

Another way to look at it is if Ozzie did not intend to accuse JM of homosexual relations, but rather was using the word in a commonly colloquial and general pejorative sense similar to how someone would use 'douchebag'. JM is not harmed b/c someone called him a douchebag or similar equivalent, therefore no slander.

Ozzie may be colorfully and inappropriately uncouth, but he is no slanderer.

you seem to confuse statements that are merely offensive with ones that are truly slanderous.


I'd have to disagree, I believe that while Ozzie did not mean the term in a homosexual matter, people have percieved it as saying that being gay somehow makes you "lesser" then heterosexuals.

i agree with your interpretation, but do you seriously think JM's rep was negatively impacted b/c Ozzie verbally attacked him in one sentence that contained no specific claims of fact?

My problem in terms of slander has nothing to do with whether JM was accused of being gay or not, it has to do with public attacksw against an individual.

thing is, slander goes way beyond just 'public attack' and you haven't shown Ozzie's comments to be otherwise.

I will just ask you to consider two things:

1st, my scenario from a page back, still didn't get an answer on that one.

Your scenario is vastly different than what is being discussed. Its not even apple-to-oranges. More like apples-to-radios.

2nd, if what ozzie did was good and legal and politically correct, then I'll run for President and tell the world on national television that I believe that my opponent is a child molestor, after all, molestor, fag, they are all just names right? Will I get away with it? Of course not, but thats no different then what Ozzie did.

Good? - depends on how much someone likes ozzie and dislikes JM
Legal? - yes
Politically correct? - no, but he's under no explicit requirement to be

You are making a false parallel. Calling someone a non-descript, pejorative term and accusing someone of being one of the worst kinds of felons are vastly different things.
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5589
(Past Year: -2)
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Postby Big Pimpin » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:34 pm

I can't believe this is still an argument...

Face it, Ozzie is here to stay. And I'm sure a monkey could have led that team to a championship, they were so much better on paper than the Yankees, or Red Sox, or Cardinals, etc. Ozzie is a great manager and some quote that got blown out of proportion isn't going to change that.

And you know what? If he gets another they'll probably give him a lifetime contract and name a street after him. :-)
Big Pimpin
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 13223
(Past Year: -487)
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Building a metric. And being ignorable and stupid.

Postby markj11 » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:38 pm

2nd, if what ozzie did was good and legal and politically correct, then I'll run for President and tell the world on national television that I believe that my opponent is a child molestor, after all, molestor, fag, they are all just names right? Will I get away with it? Of course not, but thats no different then what Ozzie did.


A child molestor does not get upset if you call someone else a child molestor but a fag does.
I ain't askin' nobody for nothin, If I can't get it on my own. - Charlie Daniels
markj11
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2102
(Past Year: -10)
Joined: 3 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Wright here

Postby chadlincoln » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:39 pm

markj11 wrote:
2nd, if what ozzie did was good and legal and politically correct, then I'll run for President and tell the world on national television that I believe that my opponent is a child molestor, after all, molestor, fag, they are all just names right? Will I get away with it? Of course not, but thats no different then what Ozzie did.


A child molestor does not get upset if you call someone else a child molestor but a fag does.
I wonder why that is.
chadlincoln
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb Supporter
Posts: 10960
(Past Year: -23)
Joined: 20 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Bleachers at Wrigley Field

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests