Return to Baseball Leftovers

Ozzie shoots off at the mouth again

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby HOOTIE » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:35 pm

TheYanks04 wrote:Yeah well last I heard this was a free country and whether you agree with him or not he has a right to his opinion. He did not yell fire in a movie theatre so why should he be suspeneded for speaking his mind? Those that do not like his viewpoint can opt to not go to WSox games. You can't criminalize speech imo.


So why do some of you guys support Guillens right to free speech, yet alot of you bash Arod and Bonds on anything they say?
Smells Like Teen Spirit
HOOTIE
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe Ranker
Posts: 15310
(Past Year: 363)
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pearl Jam country, right next door to Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains.

Postby Art Vandelay » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:35 pm

Zito is God wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:
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.


Zito, you really don't know what you're talking about. If you are going to discuss defamation you should do a little research into it. Nothing you have said regarding slander (which the above case isn't even close to) is remotely close to the truth.


Allright allright, I'm done arguing with you. I have given you the definition out of a place that invented the freaking term.

Its very simple, if this wasn't slander, MLB would not be investigating it right now.

My "opinion" could be that you are a child molestor because I saw you wave to a little girl. If I go on national television and say "This piece of s%^& is a child molestor." there will be cops, and there will be trouble. Don't argue with this my friend, that is how the law works. Yes, you get an opinion regarding someone's integrity, you don't get an opinion regarding their legal status, religious beliefs, sexuality preferences, etc. I think its funny how some of you say the whole homosexual term was no big deal considering that the Gay commision of IL wants Ozzie dead.


Actually, you can go on TV and say that you think somebody is a child molester without worrying about being charged with slander.

I know a little bit about slander and libel, and you are absolutely incorrect. It appears, however, that you'd rather dwell in your own ignorance than do a little research to better understand slander and libel law...so here, I'll make it easy for you, here's a few websites to start with:

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/person ... ation.html

Pay special attention to the part under "What Defenses are Available to People Accused of Defamation" where it says "A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true."

http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/

Of interest may be the part under "insults" where, when asked if insults and epithets are defamatory the answer is "Generally, no. Usually they are seen as outbursts of emotion, with no real substance, except to show intense dislike."

Also, wikipedia has a pretty good page on slander and libel law.
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5254
(Past Year: -11)
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby acsguitar » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:43 pm

Zito slander is a pretty tough suit to pursue.

Anyways could it be slander? Yes. Would it most likley win in court? No.

This hasn't caused harm to Marriotti's reputation and if it did it would be very hard to prove.

Also, calling someone a Fag is not defamation Per se. Meaning it is not automatically considered something that would harm his repuatation.

From http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html
classic examples of defamation per se are allegations of serious sexual misconduct; allegations of serious criminal misbehavior; or allegations that a person is afflicted with a loathsome disease.



Marriotti being a public figure makes it even harder for a slander ruling.

Anyways this page had some information on Slander. I don't think Ozzie's intent was to actually tell people that Mariotti was a homosexual. If it was then maybee Mariotti has a case.

Now if Ozzie was in all seriousness saying to the Press. "Mariotti is a homosexual. I saw him with men. I'm being serious."

Yes that is Slander
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26605
(Past Year: -117)
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby moochman » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:40 pm

acsguitar wrote:Zito slander is a pretty tough suit to pursue.

Anyways could it be slander? Yes. Would it most likley win in court? No.

This hasn't caused harm to Marriotti's reputation and if it did it would be very hard to prove.

Also, calling someone a Fag is not defamation Per se. Meaning it is not automatically considered something that would harm his repuatation.

From http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html
classic examples of defamation per se are allegations of serious sexual misconduct; allegations of serious criminal misbehavior; or allegations that a person is afflicted with a loathsome disease.



Marriotti being a public figure makes it even harder for a slander ruling.

Anyways this page had some information on Slander. I don't think Ozzie's intent was to actually tell people that Mariotti was a homosexual. If it was then maybee Mariotti has a case.

Now if Ozzie was in all seriousness saying to the Press. "Mariotti is a homosexual. I saw him with men. I'm being serious."

Yes that is Slander


I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, not even on some internet forum site. Heck, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night. So I don't know if it is slanderous or not.
What is it when someone makes a public comment about someone that paints them in a negative light in the view of that person's working environment? It's more than just what pissant Ozzie said, but that he is not only a figurehead for the mlb and the White Sox, but also has the apparent backing of at least the White Sox. Mariotti makes a living, in part, covering the White Sox baseball club. Yet he has made it very clear prior to this incident that he was not welcome in the White Sox locker room, even has been threatened. Now you have a person who is in control of that lockerroom and team publicly calling Mariotti a name, in a tone, that can only be read as "f this guy, he's to be treated like dung"
So in addition to publicly accusing him of a lifestyle that is looked down upon by most and either not true or not public knowledge, Ozzie has also told his team that Mariotti deserves no respect. If that isn't creating a hostile workplace I don't know what is.

Ozzie should be fired, and I don't doubt that he will once he stops winning. You have the right to free speech, but that comes at the price of owning up to what you've said.

And once again I applaud Bud Lite and mlb for thier fine work in keeping the great sport of baseball from reaching it's full potential. Nice job protecting the game boys.
Image
moochman
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 1280
(Past Year: -369)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: First place baby

Postby Zito is God » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:41 pm

Art Vandelay wrote:
Zito is God wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:
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.


Zito, you really don't know what you're talking about. If you are going to discuss defamation you should do a little research into it. Nothing you have said regarding slander (which the above case isn't even close to) is remotely close to the truth.


Allright allright, I'm done arguing with you. I have given you the definition out of a place that invented the freaking term.

Its very simple, if this wasn't slander, MLB would not be investigating it right now.

My "opinion" could be that you are a child molestor because I saw you wave to a little girl. If I go on national television and say "This piece of s%^& is a child molestor." there will be cops, and there will be trouble. Don't argue with this my friend, that is how the law works. Yes, you get an opinion regarding someone's integrity, you don't get an opinion regarding their legal status, religious beliefs, sexuality preferences, etc. I think its funny how some of you say the whole homosexual term was no big deal considering that the Gay commision of IL wants Ozzie dead.


Actually, you can go on TV and say that you think somebody is a child molester without worrying about being charged with slander.

I know a little bit about slander and libel, and you are absolutely incorrect. It appears, however, that you'd rather dwell in your own ignorance than do a little research to better understand slander and libel law...so here, I'll make it easy for you, here's a few websites to start with:

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/person ... ation.html

Pay special attention to the part under "What Defenses are Available to People Accused of Defamation" where it says "A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true."

http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/

Of interest may be the part under "insults" where, when asked if insults and epithets are defamatory the answer is "Generally, no. Usually they are seen as outbursts of emotion, with no real substance, except to show intense dislike."

Also, wikipedia has a pretty good page on slander and libel law.


For every statement on that site that refers to the the defense of "opinion" there are others that show clearly how Ozzie's actions can be viewed as slander. The definition listed on that site such as "A false and defamatory statement concerning another;" and "Attacks on a person's professional character or standing" sure look like what Ozzie did to me (especially the second one).

Look, I think we may be looking at this from different directions. I am not saying go sue Ozzie, I am saying this could be interpreted as slander by just as many people as those that deem it an "opinion". You pointed me to a site that showed me everything I already knew and read before (I majored in political science for a while before deciding to switch), and I completely agree with you, JM would never win in court if he went. The opinion rule + innocent until proven guilty = Ozzie goes home free. I am simply stating that waht ozzie did was wrong, politically incorrect, and, to some interpreters illegal. Nice site btw though, I haven't seen that perticular one in the years I have been looking over them.
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 acsguitar » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:50 pm

Zito is God wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:
Zito is God wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:
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.


Zito, you really don't know what you're talking about. If you are going to discuss defamation you should do a little research into it. Nothing you have said regarding slander (which the above case isn't even close to) is remotely close to the truth.


Allright allright, I'm done arguing with you. I have given you the definition out of a place that invented the freaking term.

Its very simple, if this wasn't slander, MLB would not be investigating it right now.

My "opinion" could be that you are a child molestor because I saw you wave to a little girl. If I go on national television and say "This piece of s%^& is a child molestor." there will be cops, and there will be trouble. Don't argue with this my friend, that is how the law works. Yes, you get an opinion regarding someone's integrity, you don't get an opinion regarding their legal status, religious beliefs, sexuality preferences, etc. I think its funny how some of you say the whole homosexual term was no big deal considering that the Gay commision of IL wants Ozzie dead.


Actually, you can go on TV and say that you think somebody is a child molester without worrying about being charged with slander.

I know a little bit about slander and libel, and you are absolutely incorrect. It appears, however, that you'd rather dwell in your own ignorance than do a little research to better understand slander and libel law...so here, I'll make it easy for you, here's a few websites to start with:

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/person ... ation.html

Pay special attention to the part under "What Defenses are Available to People Accused of Defamation" where it says "A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true."

http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/

Of interest may be the part under "insults" where, when asked if insults and epithets are defamatory the answer is "Generally, no. Usually they are seen as outbursts of emotion, with no real substance, except to show intense dislike."

Also, wikipedia has a pretty good page on slander and libel law.


For every statement on that site that refers to the the defense of "opinion" there are others that show clearly how Ozzie's actions can be viewed as slander. The definition listed on that site such as "A false and defamatory statement concerning another;" and "Attacks on a person's professional character or standing" sure look like what Ozzie did to me (especially the second one).

Look, I think we may be looking at this from different directions. I am not saying go sue Ozzie, I am saying this could be interpreted as slander by just as many people as those that deem it an "opinion". You pointed me to a site that showed me everything I already knew and read before (I majored in political science for a while before deciding to switch), and I completely agree with you, JM would never win in court if he went. The opinion rule + innocent until proven guilty = Ozzie goes home free. I am simply stating that waht ozzie did was wrong, politically incorrect, and, to some interpreters illegal. Nice site btw though, I haven't seen that perticular one in the years I have been looking over them.


Zito I respect you you are one of my favorite posters in here.

I agree it could be considered slander. Slander is not "Illegal" you don't go to prison for it.

Anyways could Mariotti sue and win maybee. i just don't think he would. If he did win it would be a small award I'm sure.

Anyways Slander is a tought law to try. The majority of the time the defendent wins the case.

I don't consider this Slanderous as it is pretty obvious that Ozzie wasn't trying to portray him as Homosexual.
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26605
(Past Year: -117)
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby The Miner Part 2 » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:27 pm

yet another thread hijacked with ridiculious legal arguments.. :-°
The Miner Part 2
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 3728
(Past Year: -29)
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Throwing rocks at The Cubby Bear.

Postby RugbyD » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:33 pm

moochman wrote:Ozzie has also told his team that Mariotti deserves no respect. If that isn't creating a hostile workplace I don't know what is. .

irrelevant. Mariotti has no right to any clubhouse or private venue that does not grant him that right. In any venue that does grant him access, he is a guest and can leave at any time if he doesn't like what's going on. His workplace extends only as far as the Sun-Times building.
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 Zito is God » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:05 am

acsguitar wrote:
Zito is God wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:
Zito is God wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:
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.


Zito, you really don't know what you're talking about. If you are going to discuss defamation you should do a little research into it. Nothing you have said regarding slander (which the above case isn't even close to) is remotely close to the truth.


Allright allright, I'm done arguing with you. I have given you the definition out of a place that invented the freaking term.

Its very simple, if this wasn't slander, MLB would not be investigating it right now.

My "opinion" could be that you are a child molestor because I saw you wave to a little girl. If I go on national television and say "This piece of s%^& is a child molestor." there will be cops, and there will be trouble. Don't argue with this my friend, that is how the law works. Yes, you get an opinion regarding someone's integrity, you don't get an opinion regarding their legal status, religious beliefs, sexuality preferences, etc. I think its funny how some of you say the whole homosexual term was no big deal considering that the Gay commision of IL wants Ozzie dead.


Actually, you can go on TV and say that you think somebody is a child molester without worrying about being charged with slander.

I know a little bit about slander and libel, and you are absolutely incorrect. It appears, however, that you'd rather dwell in your own ignorance than do a little research to better understand slander and libel law...so here, I'll make it easy for you, here's a few websites to start with:

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/person ... ation.html

Pay special attention to the part under "What Defenses are Available to People Accused of Defamation" where it says "A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true."

http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/

Of interest may be the part under "insults" where, when asked if insults and epithets are defamatory the answer is "Generally, no. Usually they are seen as outbursts of emotion, with no real substance, except to show intense dislike."

Also, wikipedia has a pretty good page on slander and libel law.


For every statement on that site that refers to the the defense of "opinion" there are others that show clearly how Ozzie's actions can be viewed as slander. The definition listed on that site such as "A false and defamatory statement concerning another;" and "Attacks on a person's professional character or standing" sure look like what Ozzie did to me (especially the second one).

Look, I think we may be looking at this from different directions. I am not saying go sue Ozzie, I am saying this could be interpreted as slander by just as many people as those that deem it an "opinion". You pointed me to a site that showed me everything I already knew and read before (I majored in political science for a while before deciding to switch), and I completely agree with you, JM would never win in court if he went. The opinion rule + innocent until proven guilty = Ozzie goes home free. I am simply stating that waht ozzie did was wrong, politically incorrect, and, to some interpreters illegal. Nice site btw though, I haven't seen that perticular one in the years I have been looking over them.


Zito I respect you you are one of my favorite posters in here.

I agree it could be considered slander. Slander is not "Illegal" you don't go to prison for it.

Anyways could Mariotti sue and win maybee. i just don't think he would. If he did win it would be a small award I'm sure.

Anyways Slander is a tought law to try. The majority of the time the defendent wins the case.

I don't consider this Slanderous as it is pretty obvious that Ozzie wasn't trying to portray him as Homosexual.


Thanks for that acs, likewise here as well btw.

Illegal does not necessarily send you to prison. If i stole a candy bar from a store and got caught it is illegal but I would not go to prison for it. I think you meant to say slander is not a felony, which I obviously agree with. Slander is quite hard to rpove, especially if you are a public figuire so JM would have a small case and I doubt he'd go through the trouble.
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 baboon » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:27 am

John Rocker was mentioned in a few posts in the thread, and considereing the debate on what Guillen should or should not say , lets look back on what ROcker said in the SI article:

"Imagine having to take the Number 7 train to the ballpark next to some kid with purple hair, next to some queer with AIDS right next to some dude who just got out of prison for the fourth time right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It's depressing."

Now I dont know how many of you either have been on the 7 train or live near the 7 train, but I'm on it virtually every day. When Rocker made these statements there was a huge uproar, and he was denounced as a racist, bigot, homophobe etc. and sensitivity training was in order just like in Ozzie's case. When it comes to Rocker's comments, whether you like it or not, it is the truth. Unfortunately, people would rather bury theur heads in the sand and pretend then face reality.

Unbeknown to many, but what is far more troubling than what Ozzie said is that he has to go to a "sensitivity training program". :-P
baboon
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor


Posts: 64
Joined: 7 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests