R
rapking
Guest
Kia Vaughn, center for the Rutgers Women's Basketball team, has filed a lawsuit against Don Imus for libel, slander and defamation, ABC News reports
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
W
WordLife
Guest
What a POS...She really til this day is still hurt by what he said? Get over it...
X
XxDjHeXeRxX
Guest
Word Life said:What a POS...She really til this day is still hurt by what he said? Get over it...
Thank You X2!!! ;D ;D ;D
as I said in another post I never knew who she really was until this lawsuit. now I think WORSE things of her. I think her filing this bogus lawsuit and tying up our judicial system made her image WORSE!!
The problem is, the lawyer said Imus described her as "unchaste." She'll be opening the door to her past... indiscretions...rapking said:Kia Vaughn, center for the Rutgers Women's Basketball team, has filed a lawsuit against Don Imus for libel, slander and defamation, ABC News reports
Quit with the racist remarks
Imus is no Saint. He will be back on the air in a few months so grow up everyone. We don't need racist comments on this board.
And yes the Duke students did settle with the university, but it's a private school and I would imagine they wouldn't want to let out how much they paid. They also settled with the lacrosse coach that quit
Imus is no Saint. He will be back on the air in a few months so grow up everyone. We don't need racist comments on this board.
And yes the Duke students did settle with the university, but it's a private school and I would imagine they wouldn't want to let out how much they paid. They also settled with the lacrosse coach that quit
FYI, the biggest hole in the lawsuit is that Imus didn't specifically mention her by name. So even as a member of the team, she cannot clearly say that Imus was specifically calling her a "nappy headed ho", because I BELIEVE he did not say they were ALL nappy headed ho's.
Starscream said:FYI, the biggest hole in the lawsuit is that Imus didn't specifically mention her by name. So even as a member of the team, she cannot clearly say that Imus was specifically calling her a "nappy headed ho", because I BELIEVE he did not say they were ALL nappy headed ho's.
And quite frankly, "nappy headed ho" not directed at a specific person would not qualify as "slander".
It's akin to saying those Boston Celtics are some "ugly bastards". Rude, insulting...yes. Slanderous....nope.
And libel is the "printed word" version of slander.....Imus didn't follow the insult with a handwritten note to the team
did he? This baseless lawsuit and all of the turmoil surrounding Imus' clearly inappropriate off the cuff comment borders on harassment. Those incensed by the behavior got the piece of flesh from Mr. Imus.....now let it go.
There are two things that a defendant in a ridiculous suit like this needs. Time and money. At the moment Imus has a much more than ample supply of both.
The only sane reason to try something like this would be to look for a settlement. I don't see that happening. If I knew this woman, I'd suggest quietly dropping the whole thing.
The only sane reason to try something like this would be to look for a settlement. I don't see that happening. If I knew this woman, I'd suggest quietly dropping the whole thing.
K
Knowsnews2
Guest
Was she the one who laughably claimed to be "scarred for life?"
A few days after the Rutgers news conference, the Virginia Tech gunman massacred 32 people on that campus. Perhaps Ms. Vaughn, and the rest of the Rutgers basketball players, should visit Blacksburg and try to explain to those students how being called an insulting name "scarred them for life."
Then they can visit with the 25 students who were wounded, and they can compare scars.
What a joke. The Rutgers team is an embarrassment. This lawsuit is an embarrassment. If being called a "nappy headed ho" is the worst thing that happens to Ms. Vaughn, then she'll have lived a charmed life.
A few days after the Rutgers news conference, the Virginia Tech gunman massacred 32 people on that campus. Perhaps Ms. Vaughn, and the rest of the Rutgers basketball players, should visit Blacksburg and try to explain to those students how being called an insulting name "scarred them for life."
Then they can visit with the 25 students who were wounded, and they can compare scars.
What a joke. The Rutgers team is an embarrassment. This lawsuit is an embarrassment. If being called a "nappy headed ho" is the worst thing that happens to Ms. Vaughn, then she'll have lived a charmed life.
Less than a dozen posts thus far in this thread, but the spigot of bigotry and hostility has been opened. Read closely to understand my perspective before the flames begin.
Imus is entitled to defend himself. The plaintiff is entitled to her argument. A court will decide the end result.
It can be argued that Imus slandered no one individual or group with his "nappy-headed-hos" comment. An skilled attorney can take the position that Imus' words, however stupid, mean-spirited or devoid of humor and decency, were intended to be humorous, as social commentary and not to harm any individual or group.
There's no law that says an individual cannot open his/her mouth and show him/herself to be a fool. Imus did not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
Conversely, it can be argued that the fool who made the comments had a platform, that being a 50 thousand Watt radio station, on which to make his comments and an audience of millions who heard the comments, which the target of his comments did not have.
Let the law take its course and see how this plays out.
I suspect Imus will enjoy defending himself in this case, having the time and financial resources. Being the feisty curmudgeon and media whore that he is, he'll enjoy the spotlight and it the suit will keep his name in play. If nothing else, it makes great theatre.
The suit may be dismissed summarily. On the other hand, the suit may be heard and a ruling may be tendered that will further define just how far an air personality can push the limits of fairness.
As to Jackson and Sharpton, I concur that they've already defined themselves as quick-to-the-party publicity seekers who join a long list of such character types regardless of color, age, ethnicity or religion.
-9-
Imus is entitled to defend himself. The plaintiff is entitled to her argument. A court will decide the end result.
It can be argued that Imus slandered no one individual or group with his "nappy-headed-hos" comment. An skilled attorney can take the position that Imus' words, however stupid, mean-spirited or devoid of humor and decency, were intended to be humorous, as social commentary and not to harm any individual or group.
There's no law that says an individual cannot open his/her mouth and show him/herself to be a fool. Imus did not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
Conversely, it can be argued that the fool who made the comments had a platform, that being a 50 thousand Watt radio station, on which to make his comments and an audience of millions who heard the comments, which the target of his comments did not have.
Let the law take its course and see how this plays out.
I suspect Imus will enjoy defending himself in this case, having the time and financial resources. Being the feisty curmudgeon and media whore that he is, he'll enjoy the spotlight and it the suit will keep his name in play. If nothing else, it makes great theatre.
The suit may be dismissed summarily. On the other hand, the suit may be heard and a ruling may be tendered that will further define just how far an air personality can push the limits of fairness.
As to Jackson and Sharpton, I concur that they've already defined themselves as quick-to-the-party publicity seekers who join a long list of such character types regardless of color, age, ethnicity or religion.
-9-
Vaughn not only is the player who claimed to be "Scarred For Life," but through her AAU coach a few years back claimed UConn head coach Geno Auriemma had left her "vulgar" messages during the recruiting process.
Yeah, I'm buying that.
Clearly this is a woman with a history of whining.
From Coach Stringer's book deal to this, I think it's easy to see Rutgers wasn't offended.
They were out for money from day one.
Yeah, I'm buying that.
Clearly this is a woman with a history of whining.
From Coach Stringer's book deal to this, I think it's easy to see Rutgers wasn't offended.
They were out for money from day one.
Element9 said:Conversely, it can be argued that the fool who made the comments had a platform, that being a 50 thousand Watt radio station, on which to make his comments and an audience of millions who heard the comments, which the target of his comments did not have.
Good points...however, the fact that Imus was or was not on a 50 thousand watt radio station isn't a factor as to whether his comments were of a slanderous nature toward an individual or not. It's all about the content of the comments and whom specifically they were directed at. They wouldn't have been less offensive if he had said them during a midday show (with less audience) than morning drive.
With that said, CBS and MSNBC were well within their rights to take whatever action (as unfair as it may or may not have seemed) to be appropriate.
The lawsuit seems awfully opportunistic (announced on the day of Imus' settlement with CBS) and completely without merit. Although I feel Imus comment was stupid, and indeed insulting, I feel that he has handled himself with
great humility by not ever attempting to defend it, and with great dignity by never attempting to attack those who have clearly made a much bigger deal out of a simple "bad joke" than should ever have been made in American society.
She is a player on a university sports team...that makes her a PUBLIC FIGURE and open to satire and humor....if she does not like it..she needs to get off the court.
The only scars I can forsee are being created now. A reputation for being litigious
wouldn't seem to be too endearing to a future employer.
And among other professions, she aspires to be a model. Beg pardon!
wouldn't seem to be too endearing to a future employer.
And among other professions, she aspires to be a model. Beg pardon!
beachguy3b said:The problem is, the lawyer said Imus described her as "unchaste." She'll be opening the door to her past... indiscretions...
and that often happens to those who file such "defamation of character" suits. In such suits a lot of times people don't understand THEIR past can be brought up in the case as well.
I have my doubts this suit will see the light of day. Several years ago I remember reading a story about a West Virginia business owner who owned a gym filed a similar suit ( libel & def. of character ) against a local newspaper. Why?
The reporter who wrote the story in the article called the business owner a "bear". The business owner claimed the paper was calling him a homosexual because they used the word "bear". True, the words "bear" and even "cub" are used as slang to describe a "hairy gay male" however unless one has friends and/or family in that segment of the gay community, well would the average person know? Chances are no as the judge thought so as well as he had the case thrown out.
I would be very surprised if the Imus case isn't thrown out as well.
C
chuckydoll
Guest
Imus ain't the only one being sued
Here is a full list of the defendants in Miss Vaughn's lawsuit:
That's a good chunk of Big Media right there in the dock.
Here is a full list of the defendants in Miss Vaughn's lawsuit:
- Don Imus -- host of "Imus in the Morning" on WFAN
- CBS Radio -- owner of WFAN
- CBS Corporation -- parent of CBS Radio
- Viacom -- entertainment conglomerate, a cousin to CBS Corporation
- Westwood One -- national syndicator for "Imus in the Morning"
- MSNBC -- TV channel that simulcast "Imus in the Morning"
- NBC Universal -- principal owner of MSNBC
- Bernard McGuirk -- producer of "Imus in the Morning"
That's a good chunk of Big Media right there in the dock.
R
rapking
Guest
Re: Imus ain't the only one being sued
Alot of cans of worms will open up, If Miss Vaughn win this Lawsuit . I will bring up a Lawsuit against Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton( If Miss Vaughn wins) For making me ( A Black Man ) look bad to White People . LOLchuckydoll said:Here is a full list of the defendants in Miss Vaughn's lawsuit:
- Don Imus -- host of "Imus in the Morning" on WFAN
- CBS Radio -- owner of WFAN
- CBS Corporation -- parent of CBS Radio
- Viacom -- entertainment conglomerate, a cousin to CBS Corporation
- Westwood One -- national syndicator for "Imus in the Morning"
- MSNBC -- TV channel that simulcast "Imus in the Morning"
- NBC Universal -- principal owner of MSNBC
- Bernard McGuirk -- producer of "Imus in the Morning"
That's a good chunk of Big Media right there in the dock.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.