If the case somehow makes it to trial, all bets are off. This is the Bronx we’re talking about, and Bronx juries have their own ideas about what constitutes a tort.

However, the case law in New York makes it very difficult for me to see how this case is going to get to a jury.

Why is this being tried in New York instead of New Jersey?

[DMN: because the statement was made in NY by a NY resident and the plaintiff is a NY resident.]

For that matter, this should be an easy case to throw out: She is NOT named specifically, she has NOT had her reputation harmed–indeed, the pub from this idiotic lawsuit is causing more harm than the original blanket comment about the entire team–and this should be thrown out on summary judgement with Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff.

“It’s not about the money”?
I call “B.S.”–or better yet, extortion and theft.

But. I have to disagree with you on the crux of the issue, which is the meaning of “ho”. I can’t think of any reasonable person off the street who would think that Imus (who is, verily, a piece of refuse) meant that the players were prostituting themselves. Really. I think it’s really jumping the shark to posit that anyone rational would hear the comments he and his prducer made, and conclude that an accusation of being a whore was made. Rude in the extreme, yes. But not a criminal accusation.

Thanks for your time 🙂

I have not read all of the comments here (I do intend to) but I have a couple of things to say, and at my age, if I don’t do it while I am thinking about it….

Suppose you are a lawyer and in the news reports about your precedent-setting presentation to the United states Supreme Court on a matter that you thought was pretty important you are referred-to as a “penguin-suited ambulance chaser. Defamation?

And see. I have forgotten the other thing.

(Going back for a clue, I see that I am not actually commenting on the item that triggered the thoughts. Maybe I’ll bo back there (if I can find it) and try again.)

(To put this into context, a few weeks ago, my sixteen -year-old commented that his older sister’s friends are “all whores” since most have had premarital sex and several got pregnant out of wedlock. Oddly, my oldest daughter has used the term “whore” herself to describe some of these friends as well as others. Since I know most of the kids both are talking about, I should add that my daughter’s assessment is more accurate than my son’s; why could be an interesting study of family dynamics and psychology.)

(This does raise an interesting question. If the plaintiff is claiming that “whore”, as applied to her using the common meaning of her peer group as I’ve described, is still defamation since it’s non-factual, then it seems to me that her entire sexual history will be exposed to the public. Since I seriously doubt she’s a virgin–though she may be–this seems a very unwise course of action.)

As to the case… if there’s no settlement, I will go on the record saying that she should lose, and I even have a fairly high confidence that she would, if it went to trial.

I wouldn’t be so optimistic. I believe part of the reason this website exists is because cases like these often make it much further than they should. I’d actually put Imus at the disadvantage. Who knows what will happen if this case makes it to a jury.

In Mayhew, which involved allegedly defamatory comments made by Imus about a DMV employee, the defense successfully argued that his comments amounted to “rhetorical hyperbole,” which by law does not form the basis of a defamation action. The defense further argued that Imus was expressing a “pure opinion” rather than an allegation of fact. The defense cited an appellate case (Gross v. New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146 – 1993) in which the court ruled “…only expressions that can reasonably be construed as stating an objective verifiable statement of actual fact are actionable as defamation.” The Court in Gross also ruled that in order to prevail, the plaintiff would have to show that “…the reasonable listener or reader is likely to understand the remark as an assertion of provable fact.”

So the question here is — did any reasonable person who heard Imus’ comments believe that he was asserting that the members of the Rutgers women’s basketball team are in fact prostitutes? I also expect, as others have suggested, that Imus will argue that he was actually commenting on the appearance of the basketball players, in which case what he said was clearly a “pure opinion.”

As repugnant as Imus’ remarks were, I have a difficult time seeing how this case is going a survive a Motion to Dismiss.

That is, the damages you talk about were most definitely *NOT* the result of defamation. They were the result of unwanted publicity. This case is an abuse of the legal system because it attempts to rewrite reality to turn what is definitely *not* a defamation case into one simply because that’s the way to get money from Imus.

When you listen to the whole quote, you can tell that he is not talking about the entire Rutger’s team – not unless you are willing to say that all of the women have tattoos which is the comment that precedes his “nappy headed ho’s” comment. Once again, you continue to provide people with the ammunition to show the fallacy of your position.

I (and most others here) are not “defending Imus” in any reasonable sense – that is, what he did was nasty, and I disapprove (as most others have been quick to point out as well).

But I “disapprove” of many things which are not actionable!

Next: Yay. You’ve got more paper than then me saying you’re a relevant guy. You’re still utterly walking around the central point. You’ve ASSUMED that he called her a criminal; IF he made a serious accusation of criminality against her, well, yay, you’re more qualified than I am to say so. Yay for you.

The whole point, and the reason that most of th commenters on here just can’t seem to agree with your vastly superior self, is that, quite simply, he didn’t make an accusation of criminality against her.

This has been pointed out to you repeatedly; the rest of your points are essentially irrelevant, as there’s nowhere to start from.

I understand that you disagree with the majority here, which is fine and your right, but please don’t go arguing so many things which depend on a basic assumption that you simply can’t convince us of. Go back to my mention of a dictionary from the 1200s, and you’ll se why you CAN’T convince us.

As to the case… if there’s no settlement, I will go on the record saying that she should lose, and I even have a fairly high confidence that she would, if it went to trial.

Of course, I have a higher expectation that there will simply be a nuisance settlement, instead, so it’s really a moot point.