OFFICIAL 2010-2011 NFL season & predictions thread:

[YoungJRNY]

I think everyone was saying that about the Patriots in 2007, Super Bowl XLII. Karma 17 Cheatriots 14!

Which brings me to my next point. I think it's time for an avatar change:

Right..and recording an opposing team (which is done ALL THE TIME in the NFL) is the same as raping multiple women. One word comes to mind. Actually two. FUCKING CLUELESS!

Then every NFL Head Coach should be fined $500,000, every team in the NFL should be fined $250,000 as well as being deducted a first round draft pick while covering up and burning their own evidence. Ben was NEVER charged or arrested, all sought out allegations. FUCKING CLUELESS.

[Don]

In three Super Bowl appearances, Roethlisberger's thrown three touchdowns and five interceptions, and has compiled an overall QB rating of 69.9. for a 2-1 record on the big stage.

I guess that's why you play the game.

[Uno_up]

super bowl...close game, so exciting.
both qb's were innacurate and unimpressive. roethlisberger flat out sucked.
aguilera. umm, whore retard. but i felt sorry for her. she just blanked.
halftime. bunch of jerk-offs making weird sounds and gesticulating like an R-rated closing number from the donny & Marie show.
then i had a ridiculous dessert of coffee and vanilla ice creams, brownie, whipped cream, cookie bits and carmel topping.
i don't remember fuck****-all after that.
a fantastic nap ensued.

[Enigma869]

Ben was NEVER charged or arrested

This just in...athletes buy their way out of EVERYTHING and The Rapist is no different. He took a page out of Kobe's playbook.

[YoungJRNY]

Ben was NEVER charged or arrested

This just in...athletes buy their way out of EVERYTHING and The Rapist is no different. He took a page out of Kobe's playbook.

Just in: Gold Diggers are out there to bring down an athlete in the spotlight to gain and inherit their millions of dollars. That girl surely didn't act like a rape victim. She changed her story & gladly was never heard from again. That's why the DA of Georgia kept the case open well over a week's notice to try to land more clues and DNA of Roethlisberger but failed to receive any of it which led to the closing of the case. Point blank, they wanted Ben nailed but couldn't put the facts together to even arrest him. If it was some average Joe, this rape case, due to the LACK of any existing evidence, would of been closed within a days time.

[RossValoryRocks]

Right..and recording an opposing team (which is done ALL THE TIME in the NFL) is the same as raping multiple women. One word comes to mind. Actually two. FUCKING CLUELESS!

You have proof he raped two women? Better take it to the authorites. You do know that while you can have have an opinion on his character, flat out stating that he raped two women can get you in serious trouble, right?

And yes I am being serious, Roethisberger could come after you in a court of law for posting that.

[Ehwmatt]

Right..and recording an opposing team (which is done ALL THE TIME in the NFL) is the same as raping multiple women. One word comes to mind. Actually two. FUCKING CLUELESS!

You have proof he raped two women? Better take it to the authorites. You do know that while you can have have an opinion on his character, flat out stating that he raped two women can get you in serious trouble, right?

And yes I am being serious, Roethisberger could come after you in a court of law for posting that.

lol, i'm sure coming after John would be on Rapistberger's legal team's high priority list.

Good luck to them trying to prove John defamed him knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. He's a public figure.

Pittsburgh fans honestly disgust me. They were all ready to throw him under the bus, trade him etc. Now that he brought you back to the Super Bowl, he's golden boy #1 again. Have some integrity. Even a douche like LeBron has never been formally accused of shit like that, but you wouldn't catch me rooting for him personally or defending him even when he was leading our teams to conference finals and all that crap. I'm on record for YEARS here and elsewhere as saying the guy was a fucking douche. You can root for the guy to throw a million TDs and win every game he starts for you, but to defend the guy personally is just disgusting. He's a fucking douche, and the rape allegations weren't the first whiff of that idea either.

[RossValoryRocks]

Right..and recording an opposing team (which is done ALL THE TIME in the NFL) is the same as raping multiple women. One word comes to mind. Actually two. FUCKING CLUELESS!

You have proof he raped two women? Better take it to the authorites. You do know that while you can have have an opinion on his character, flat out stating that he raped two women can get you in serious trouble, right?

And yes I am being serious, Roethisberger could come after you in a court of law for posting that.

lol, i'm sure coming after John would be on Rapistberger's legal team's high priority list.

Good luck to them trying to prove John defamed him knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. He's a public figure.

Pittsburgh fans honestly disgust me. They were all ready to throw him under the bus, trade him etc. Now that he brought you back to the Super Bowl, he's golden boy #1 again. Have some integrity. Even a douche like LeBron has never been formally accused of shit like that, but you wouldn't catch me rooting for him personally or defending him even when he was leading our teams to conference finals and all that crap. I'm on record for YEARS here and elsewhere as saying the guy was a fucking douche. You can root for the guy to throw a million TDs and win every game he starts for you, but to defend the guy personally is just disgusting. He's a fucking douche, and the rape allegations weren't the first whiff of that idea either.

Ahh, I am not defending Roethisberger, just pointing out that John could get in trouble, big trouble...and while he is a public figure fully stating the man has raped multiple women with no proof (i.e. convictions), is defamation plain and simple.

Ben might be a low life, his actions lend crendence to that, he might be the worst human being in the world, but being a public figure doesn't allow a person to defame him, regardless.

US Law requires 5 key elements: The plaintiff must prove that the information was published (it was, right here), the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified (he was), the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation (It was, he has never been convicted of rape), the published information is false (See the previous), and that the defendant is at fault (John typed it he is at fault).

Finally some statements are so bad they are considered Defamation per se, this would fall under that category.

From http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/ ... -statement :

"Defamation Per Se

Some statements of fact are so egregious that they will always be considered defamatory. Such statements are typically referred to as defamation "per se." These types of statements are assumed to harm the plaintiff's reputation, without further need to prove that harm. Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things:

•a criminal offense;

•a loathsome disease;

•matter incompatible with his business, trade, profession, or office; or

•serious sexual misconduct."

[YoungJRNY]

Right..and recording an opposing team (which is done ALL THE TIME in the NFL) is the same as raping multiple women. One word comes to mind. Actually two. FUCKING CLUELESS!

You have proof he raped two women? Better take it to the authorites. You do know that while you can have have an opinion on his character, flat out stating that he raped two women can get you in serious trouble, right?

And yes I am being serious, Roethisberger could come after you in a court of law for posting that.

lol, i'm sure coming after John would be on Rapistberger's legal team's high priority list.

Good luck to them trying to prove John defamed him knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. He's a public figure.

Pittsburgh fans honestly disgust me. They were all ready to throw him under the bus, trade him etc. Now that he brought you back to the Super Bowl, he's golden boy #1 again. Have some integrity. Even a douche like LeBron has never been formally accused of shit like that, but you wouldn't catch me rooting for him personally or defending him even when he was leading our teams to conference finals and all that crap. I'm on record for YEARS here and elsewhere as saying the guy was a fucking douche. You can root for the guy to throw a million TDs and win every game he starts for you, but to defend the guy personally is just disgusting. He's a fucking douche, and the rape allegations weren't the first whiff of that idea either.

When word first broke, Pittsburgh was in a complete uproar. The whole CITY was disgusted and had enough with the actions that he put Pittsburgh in the wrong spot-light. We were all ready to move on and even though I wasn't budging until further evidence, I was preparing myself to re-build at the QB position because of how the Rooney's operate.

Once all of the witness's came forward and the story came out, I think most of it really dwindlied it down to being a horseshit, bogus attempt of another woman coming after an athete. Was Ben the model person you could let your child follow, people standards? Absolutely not and TRUST me, the people of Pittsburgh let him have it.

Hell dude, they still do to THIS DAY but knowing the evidence and knowing that the story could be absolute bullshit and it's he said, she said and after we LEARNED that the Rooney's were going to help him regain credibility, work with him and stick behind him, then from that point forward, if Mr. Rooney says he deserves a chance, then we as fans have no reason not to give it as well.

There will always be that allegation in the back of Steelers fans head, and we are not proud that sometimes we can't like Ben as a person rather than the football player, actually it kills fans but judging that our great U.S of A states that you are INNOCENT until proven guilty, and the only thing we have now is how Ben is acting in the "present" and go off of John's famous "eye-ball test" then it certainly does look like Ben needed the scare to become a better person.

He is engaged and reportedly putting in his time to become a better person. I think Steelers fans are right there along with him in the healing process. What the fuck else do you want us to do?

[Ehwmatt]

Right..and recording an opposing team (which is done ALL THE TIME in the NFL) is the same as raping multiple women. One word comes to mind. Actually two. FUCKING CLUELESS!

You have proof he raped two women? Better take it to the authorites. You do know that while you can have have an opinion on his character, flat out stating that he raped two women can get you in serious trouble, right?

And yes I am being serious, Roethisberger could come after you in a court of law for posting that.

lol, i'm sure coming after John would be on Rapistberger's legal team's high priority list.

Good luck to them trying to prove John defamed him knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. He's a public figure.

Pittsburgh fans honestly disgust me. They were all ready to throw him under the bus, trade him etc. Now that he brought you back to the Super Bowl, he's golden boy #1 again. Have some integrity. Even a douche like LeBron has never been formally accused of shit like that, but you wouldn't catch me rooting for him personally or defending him even when he was leading our teams to conference finals and all that crap. I'm on record for YEARS here and elsewhere as saying the guy was a fucking douche. You can root for the guy to throw a million TDs and win every game he starts for you, but to defend the guy personally is just disgusting. He's a fucking douche, and the rape allegations weren't the first whiff of that idea either.

Ahh, I am not defending Roethisberger, just pointing out that John could get in trouble, big trouble...and while he is a public figure fully stating the man has raped multiple women with no proof (i.e. convictions), is defamation plain and simple.

Ben might be a low life, his actions lend crendence to that, he might be the worst human being in the world, but being a public figure doesn't allow a person to defame him, regardless.

US Law requires 5 key elements: The plaintiff must prove that the information was published (it was, right here), the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified (he was), the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation (It was, he has never been convicted of rape), the published information is false (See the previous), and that the defendant is at fault (John typed it he is at fault).

Finally some statements are so bad they are considered Defamation per se, this would fall under that category.

Stu, the standard for public figures is much higher.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... s_sdt=2,36

Defamation is a TOUGH case to win, even for private figures. For public figures, it's nearly impossible. Otherwise, how do you figure all those tabloids aren't bankrupt a million times over by defamation suits from celebs?

[Enigma869]

Ahh, I am not defending Roethisberger, just pointing out that John could get in trouble, big trouble...and while he is a public figure fully stating the man has raped multiple women with no proof (i.e. convictions), is defamation plain and simple.

Ben might be a low life, his actions lend crendence to that, he might be the worst human being in the world, but being a public figure doesn't allow a person to defame him, regardless.

US Law requires 5 key elements: The plaintiff must prove that the information was published (it was, right here), the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified (he was), the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation (It was, he has never been convicted of rape), the published information is false (See the previous), and that the defendant is at fault (John typed it he is at fault).

Finally some statements are so bad they are considered Defamation per se, this would fall under that category.

From http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/ ... -statement :

"Defamation Per Se

Some statements of fact are so egregious that they will always be considered defamatory. Such statements are typically referred to as defamation "per se." These types of statements are assumed to harm the plaintiff's reputation, without further need to prove that harm. Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things:

•a criminal offense;

•a loathsome disease;

•matter incompatible with his business, trade, profession, or office; or

•serious sexual misconduct."

Save your dissertation for someone who gives a fuck. Listen, I have a degree in Criminal Justice (which required a whole lot of legal studies) and worked as a cop for many years, so I'm certain I don't need you or anyone else to elucidate me on "defamation" (incidentally, if it's written, it's Libel). I'll give Ben and his legal team my address and they can come "after me". I'll try my best not to stress too much while I'm waiting. Fucking hilarious!

[RossValoryRocks]

Right..and recording an opposing team (which is done ALL THE TIME in the NFL) is the same as raping multiple women. One word comes to mind. Actually two. FUCKING CLUELESS!

You have proof he raped two women? Better take it to the authorites. You do know that while you can have have an opinion on his character, flat out stating that he raped two women can get you in serious trouble, right?

And yes I am being serious, Roethisberger could come after you in a court of law for posting that.

lol, i'm sure coming after John would be on Rapistberger's legal team's high priority list.

Good luck to them trying to prove John defamed him knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. He's a public figure.

Pittsburgh fans honestly disgust me. They were all ready to throw him under the bus, trade him etc. Now that he brought you back to the Super Bowl, he's golden boy #1 again. Have some integrity. Even a douche like LeBron has never been formally accused of shit like that, but you wouldn't catch me rooting for him personally or defending him even when he was leading our teams to conference finals and all that crap. I'm on record for YEARS here and elsewhere as saying the guy was a fucking douche. You can root for the guy to throw a million TDs and win every game he starts for you, but to defend the guy personally is just disgusting. He's a fucking douche, and the rape allegations weren't the first whiff of that idea either.

Ahh, I am not defending Roethisberger, just pointing out that John could get in trouble, big trouble...and while he is a public figure fully stating the man has raped multiple women with no proof (i.e. convictions), is defamation plain and simple.

Ben might be a low life, his actions lend crendence to that, he might be the worst human being in the world, but being a public figure doesn't allow a person to defame him, regardless.

US Law requires 5 key elements: The plaintiff must prove that the information was published (it was, right here), the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified (he was), the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation (It was, he has never been convicted of rape), the published information is false (See the previous), and that the defendant is at fault (John typed it he is at fault).

Finally some statements are so bad they are considered Defamation per se, this would fall under that category.

Stu, the standard for public figures is much higher.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... s_sdt=2,36

Defamation is a TOUGH case to win, even for private figures. For public figures, it's nearly impossible. Otherwise, how do you figure all those tabloids aren't bankrupt a million times over by defamation suits from celebs?

Because what the tabloid spew (for the most part) is so outside the realm of possibility it cannot be considered as truth by a rational person (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 1985).

Actually calling Ben Roethisberger a rapist (multiple time rapist) actually is Defamation per se, no matter what. Now you are right in assuming Ben's lawyer wouldn't go after John, but remember the other tenent of our legal system, he who has the $$$ hold all the cards. File in Pittsburgh, John has to respond or face a judgement by not appearing, it costs him time and money to do either, for Ben not so much and it would prove a point that while he had allegations against him, those are not the same as a conviction.

Again, while I think Ben has a very shallow moral character, you cannot call someone a rapist, a private person or public figure with no proof.

As for NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN. that is a differnent set of circumstances than John flat out calling Ben a rapist.

[S2M]

BTW, And John tell me if I'm wrong, wouldn't you have to cause lost wages - or some sort of career loss for any of this to stick anyway? Like if I was spreading it around that RobbieG was gay - and then word got to a potential employer, subsequently leading to his non-hire, or firing...or some scenario like that. I don't think you can just throw about an accusation of libel and/or slander/defamation without some sort of loss.

[RossValoryRocks]

BTW, And John tell me if I'm wrong, wouldn't you have to cause lost wages - or some sort of career loss for any of this to stick anyway? Like if I was spreading it around that RobbieG was gay - and then word got to a potential employer, subsequently leading to his non-hire, or firing...or some scenario like that. I don't think you can just throw about an accusation of libel and/or slander/defamation without some sort of loss.

No. Actual loss is not required for it to be considered.

[S2M]

BTW, And John tell me if I'm wrong, wouldn't you have to cause lost wages - or some sort of career loss for any of this to stick anyway? Like if I was spreading it around that RobbieG was gay - and then word got to a potential employer, subsequently leading to his non-hire, or firing...or some scenario like that. I don't think you can just throw about an accusation of libel and/or slander/defamation without some sort of loss.

No. Actual loss is not required for it to be considered.

Well then I don't know on what grounds a lawsuit would have then.....People say things about people everyday. Stand up comics would be dirt poor if this shit would stick. Jay Leno wouldn't have 54 cars.

[Ehwmatt]

Ok, this is just getting embarrassing.

First of all, defamation is a generic term encompassing both libel (written) and slander (spoken).

Second of all, I can assure you that Ben or a lawyer repping him would never sue on these facts because he would face court sanctions for filing a suit in bad faith. John likely wouldn't even have to file an answer. That's how clearly established the law regarding defamation of public figures. Any first year law student who has taken a semester of Torts would know this, let alone any lawyer.

To defame a public figure, you must do so with actual malice - which is either the speaker/writer knew the allegations were false or made the allegations with reckless disregard for the truth. John has done neither. It doesn't matter whether you're alleging per se defamation or not.

[RossValoryRocks]

BTW, And John tell me if I'm wrong, wouldn't you have to cause lost wages - or some sort of career loss for any of this to stick anyway? Like if I was spreading it around that RobbieG was gay - and then word got to a potential employer, subsequently leading to his non-hire, or firing...or some scenario like that. I don't think you can just throw about an accusation of libel and/or slander/defamation without some sort of loss.

No. Actual loss is not required for it to be considered.

Well then I don't know on what grounds a lawsuit would have then.....People say things about people everyday.

Did you read the links I posted?

"...damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. "Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things":

Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)"

[RossValoryRocks]

Ok, this is just getting embarrassing.

First of all, defamation is a generic term encompassing both libel (written) and slander (spoken).

Second of all, I can assure you that Ben or a lawyer repping him would never sue on these facts because he would face court sanctions for filing a suit in bad faith. John wouldn't even have to file an answer.

To defame a public figure, you must do so with actual malice - which is either the speaker/writer knew the allegations were false or made the allegations with reckless disregard for the truth. John has done neither. It doesn't matter whether you're alleging per se defamation or not.

So if you took the whole of the statements about Ben, you couldn't prove malice? "Raplisberger" et al?? Doesn't prove malice? Calling him a rapist isn't reckless disregard for the truth?

You are confusing Public Official with Public Person, a public official has almost NO way to prove defamation, however a public person has a different set of tests, and you know it.

[Ehwmatt]

Ok, this is just getting embarrassing.

First of all, defamation is a generic term encompassing both libel (written) and slander (spoken).

Second of all, I can assure you that Ben or a lawyer repping him would never sue on these facts because he would face court sanctions for filing a suit in bad faith. John wouldn't even have to file an answer.

To defame a public figure, you must do so with actual malice - which is either the speaker/writer knew the allegations were false or made the allegations with reckless disregard for the truth. John has done neither. It doesn't matter whether you're alleging per se defamation or not.

So if you took the whole of the statements about Ben, you couldn't prove malice? "Raplisberger" et al?? Doesn't prove malice? Calling him a rapist isn't reckless disregard for the truth?

Wow...glad you won't be my lawyer.

It's malice in the laymen's sense, not the legal sense. Come on Stu, anyone knows lawyers make their living off of technical definitions, terms of art, and minute distinctions. I know you're a sharp dude. Surely you understand that malice doesn't just mean John's doing it because he thinks ill of Ben or hates the Steelers. That's simply not the legal standard.

Remember the First Amendment. Courts are loathe to give credence to speech-based actions because of the risk it will chill speech. Do you honestly think that Ben would have a suit here when the First Amendment allows Fred Phelps & Co to engage in their tomfoolery?

[S2M]

Stu, good luck proving intent. Hardest, and most subjective concept in the field of law to prove. Have at it.

[RossValoryRocks]

Ok, this is just getting embarrassing.

First of all, defamation is a generic term encompassing both libel (written) and slander (spoken).

Second of all, I can assure you that Ben or a lawyer repping him would never sue on these facts because he would face court sanctions for filing a suit in bad faith. John wouldn't even have to file an answer.

To defame a public figure, you must do so with actual malice - which is either the speaker/writer knew the allegations were false or made the allegations with reckless disregard for the truth. John has done neither. It doesn't matter whether you're alleging per se defamation or not.

So if you took the whole of the statements about Ben, you couldn't prove malice? "Raplisberger" et al?? Doesn't prove malice? Calling him a rapist isn't reckless disregard for the truth?

Wow...glad you won't be my lawyer.

It's malice in the laymen's sense, not the legal sense. Come on Stu, anyone knows lawyers make their living off of technical definitions, terms of art, and minute distinctions. I know you're a sharp dude. Surely you understand that malice doesn't just mean John's doing it because he thinks ill of Ben or hates the Steelers. That's simply not the legal standard.

Remember the First Amendment. Courts are loathe to give credence to speech-based actions because of the risk it will chill speech. Do you honestly think that Ben would have a suit here when the First Amendment allows Fred Phelps & Co to engage in their tomfoolery?

I understand what you are saying, I understand it is highly unlikely, I also understand that under the strict definition of Defamation per se that John could be found guilty, especially with a favorable jury if filed here PA.

[RossValoryRocks]

Stu, good luck proving intent. Hardest, and most subjective concept in the field of law to prove. Have at it.

Did you READ what a per se defamation is?

Go up 2 posts...I don't HAVE to prove it. The defaming statement itself is proof.

Besides that, this is nothing but a mind exercise, I know Ben would never come after John for posting that...but it should stop and maybe make him think how far he can push an envelope, or not.

[Ehwmatt]

Ok, this is just getting embarrassing.

First of all, defamation is a generic term encompassing both libel (written) and slander (spoken).

Second of all, I can assure you that Ben or a lawyer repping him would never sue on these facts because he would face court sanctions for filing a suit in bad faith. John wouldn't even have to file an answer.

To defame a public figure, you must do so with actual malice - which is either the speaker/writer knew the allegations were false or made the allegations with reckless disregard for the truth. John has done neither. It doesn't matter whether you're alleging per se defamation or not.

So if you took the whole of the statements about Ben, you couldn't prove malice? "Raplisberger" et al?? Doesn't prove malice? Calling him a rapist isn't reckless disregard for the truth?

Wow...glad you won't be my lawyer.

It's malice in the laymen's sense, not the legal sense. Come on Stu, anyone knows lawyers make their living off of technical definitions, terms of art, and minute distinctions. I know you're a sharp dude. Surely you understand that malice doesn't just mean John's doing it because he thinks ill of Ben or hates the Steelers. That's simply not the legal standard.

Remember the First Amendment. Courts are loathe to give credence to speech-based actions because of the risk it will chill speech. Do you honestly think that Ben would have a suit here when the First Amendment allows Fred Phelps & Co to engage in their tomfoolery?

I understand what you are saying, I understand it is highly unlikely, I also understand that under the strict definition of Defamation per se that John could be found guilty, especially with a favorable jury if filed here PA.

Look man, I'm not trying to talk down to you at all, but you aren't grasping the legal concepts/definitions involved. Trust me. Ben is unequivocally a public figure for the purposes of defamation law. You do not even have to be a national celebrity or elected official to be a public figure for defamation purposes. You can even be a public figure for defamation purposes just by being a prolific local business CEO or being an average joe writing letters to the newspaper.

The actual malice standard applies regardless of whether you're alleging per se defamation or not. John would never face a jury because the claim would be dismissed on motion, probably along with court-issued sanctions for the shyster who would ever dream of even filing such a suit.

[StevePerryHair]

I wish Phyl was still around so she could enlighten us some more on slander and law suits

[Ehwmatt]

I wish Phyl was still around so she could enlighten us some more on slander and law suits

hahahahahahahahahaha. I forgot all about that shit. Classic.

[S2M]

I wish Phyl was still around so she could enlighten us some more on slander and law suits

I vandalize her artwork everytime I visit the shitter. I made vanity toiletpaper out of her painting.

[RossValoryRocks]

Ok, this is just getting embarrassing.

First of all, defamation is a generic term encompassing both libel (written) and slander (spoken).

Second of all, I can assure you that Ben or a lawyer repping him would never sue on these facts because he would face court sanctions for filing a suit in bad faith. John wouldn't even have to file an answer.

To defame a public figure, you must do so with actual malice - which is either the speaker/writer knew the allegations were false or made the allegations with reckless disregard for the truth. John has done neither. It doesn't matter whether you're alleging per se defamation or not.

So if you took the whole of the statements about Ben, you couldn't prove malice? "Raplisberger" et al?? Doesn't prove malice? Calling him a rapist isn't reckless disregard for the truth?

Wow...glad you won't be my lawyer.

It's malice in the laymen's sense, not the legal sense. Come on Stu, anyone knows lawyers make their living off of technical definitions, terms of art, and minute distinctions. I know you're a sharp dude. Surely you understand that malice doesn't just mean John's doing it because he thinks ill of Ben or hates the Steelers. That's simply not the legal standard.

Remember the First Amendment. Courts are loathe to give credence to speech-based actions because of the risk it will chill speech. Do you honestly think that Ben would have a suit here when the First Amendment allows Fred Phelps & Co to engage in their tomfoolery?

I understand what you are saying, I understand it is highly unlikely, I also understand that under the strict definition of Defamation per se that John could be found guilty, especially with a favorable jury if filed here PA.

Look man, I'm not trying to talk down to you at all, but you aren't grasping the legal concepts/definitions involved. Trust me. Ben is unequivocally a public figure for the purposes of defamation law. You do not even have to be a national celebrity or elected official to be a public figure for defamation purposes. You can even be a public figure for defamation purposes just by being a prolific local business CEO or being an average joe writing letters to the newspaper.

The actual malice standard applies regardless of whether you're alleging per se defamation or not. John would never face a jury because the claim would be dismissed on motion, probably along with court-issued sanctions for the shyster who would ever dream of even filing such a suit.

yes I know...I have read the various pieces of case law...including the one about the woman who made herself a public figure by writing letters...the difference that you aren't grasping is John said with no equivocation Ben Roethisberger is a rapist, and that is a 100% defamatory statement and the statement itself is proof of malice under Per se definitions.

[S2M]

Ok....so If I stated that OJ is a murderous leche. Is that slanderous, dafametory, or otherwise libelous?

[RossValoryRocks]

Ok....so If I stated that OJ is a murderous leche. Is that slanderous, dafametory, or otherwise libelous?

He was convicted in civil court of being that...so I would say you are ok on all counts.

[S2M]

Ok....so If I stated that OJ is a murderous leche. Is that slanderous, dafametory, or otherwise libelous?

He was convicted in civil court of being that...so I would say you are ok on all counts.

Actually, Civil court is the red-headed stepchild. Not convicted in criminal court, so he really didn't do it in the eyes of the law. Burden of proof is basically non-existent in Civil trials. Which is a crock anyway. Why should someone lose their life in Civil Court when they were found not guilty in a Criminal trial. If they didn't do it.....they didn't do it.