- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Poli Board Defamation Scholars
Posted on 4/24/26 at 1:43 pm to AlterEd
Posted on 4/24/26 at 1:43 pm to AlterEd
quote:
Atlantic used are spreading hearsay and Patel has first hand witness testimony contradicting that, The Atlantic may be screwed here.
No they still would not be screwed. Patel would have to show that they acted with "reckless disregard" meaning they knew for a fact the the informatoin was false. The Atlantic only has to meet a reasonable standard for its reliance on the information.
0
Posted on 4/24/26 at 1:48 pm to Ham Malone
quote:Seems like a reasonable take.
Tell me why Crimson77’s analysis is flawed
... which Patel would also know.
Obviously, the man has a reason to bring the suit.
So the question is why would he do it?
Posted on 4/24/26 at 1:54 pm to NC_Tigah
If he wins he wins and if he loses he can play the victim card.
Posted on 4/24/26 at 1:57 pm to AlterEd
it was a hit piece,he was correct on that.
Posted on 4/24/26 at 1:58 pm to Ham Malone
quote:Negative.
if he loses he can play the victim card.
If he's done some of the things, ANY of them, that he's accused of, playing the victim card won't help. Right now this thing stands as a rumor-based unserious piece. A court case verifying claims offers the ability to elevate it far above that stage.
Posted on 4/24/26 at 1:58 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
The comment about Rebel is superfluous because he’s dumb and doesn’t understand litigation and leverage. It was low-hanging fruit that he sells booze and that’s germane to this story.
I don't understand litigation and leverage? You are the one that claimed Nick Sandmann and Lin Wood split 5 thousand dollars. Do you still stand by that?
(i don't sell liquor. my family owns a wholesale distributor)
Posted on 4/24/26 at 2:09 pm to Ham Malone
quote:
the last guy couldn’t so maybe you’re up to the task.
The “last guy” never said anything about anyone being wrong or right or anything like that. You failed to grasp my remarks from the jump.
Oh, and as for “haute” attitude….. I give in return what I receive.
Posted on 4/24/26 at 2:13 pm to boosiebadazz
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Knives are out for Kash daddy
This post was edited on 4/24/26 at 2:15 pm
Posted on 4/24/26 at 2:20 pm to davyjones
Your profile says you’re an attorney and you referenced a theoretical attorney who could make a counter argument. It was reasonable to make the jump that you were that attorney.
This was a pointless interaction which you appear to have a reputation for participating in frequently on this board.
This was a pointless interaction which you appear to have a reputation for participating in frequently on this board.
Posted on 4/24/26 at 2:42 pm to Ham Malone
Yeah it’s a pointless conversation if and when one party to the conversation is unable to grasp various concepts. And it’s not like they’re overly complicated concepts either. So then you get frustrated and start casting aspersions. You’re just like anyone else who’s ever had a problem with me, so sure, I’ll add you to the group. They too take issue with the structure of my posts and fuss about “use less words,” and “use simpler words”. Welcome aboard.
Posted on 4/24/26 at 2:56 pm to davyjones
You didn’t coney any concepts to grasp. Your posts in this thread consist of you insinuating knowledge that you obviously don’t have. Best of luck to the next poster you drag down into the briar patch.
Posted on 4/24/26 at 2:57 pm to Ham Malone
He has arse burgers, dude. We just kind of pat him on the head and move along.
This post was edited on 4/24/26 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 4/24/26 at 3:09 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
We just kind of
So basically you, Ham Malone, your mom, and maybe a small handful of random n’er-do-wells amongst us? Oh gosh, I better change my ways!Posted on 4/24/26 at 3:13 pm to davyjones
Posted on 4/24/26 at 3:16 pm to boosiebadazz
Imagine thinking the Atlantic is trustworthy.
Posted on 4/24/26 at 3:28 pm to Ham Malone
quote:
Tell me why Crimson77’s analysis is flawed, the last guy couldn’t so maybe you’re up to the task.
Haven’t seen his analysis. Live to read it if you can link it.
And I know you appeal to the fact he says he has tried these cases. Ive only tried two. So. It not as experienced as him.
However…that fact that in a defamation case discovery is basically unlimited and can go into every single facet of a plaintiff’s entire life leads me to believe that it would be foolish for Kash to file the claim if there was any history of substance abuse.
Additionally, the failure of the Atlantic to name a single of their dozen alleged sources is a huge red flag.
I’m happy to entertain any further questions.
Posted on 4/24/26 at 3:40 pm to BBONDS25
His posts are in this thread and appeared to provide a good explanation of the difficulties Kash will have in winning this case.
Posted on 4/24/26 at 3:44 pm to BBONDS25
quote:They cite it, then don't link it
Haven’t seen his analysis. Live to read it if you can link it.
And I know you appeal to the fact he says he has tried these cases. Ive only tried two. So. It not as experienced as him.
However…that fact that in a defamation case discovery is basically unlimited and can go into every single facet of a plaintiff’s entire life leads me to believe that it would be foolish for Kash to file the claim if there was any history of substance abuse.
Additionally, the failure of the Atlantic to name a single of their dozen alleged sources is a huge red flag.
I’m happy to entertain any further questions.
Here it is.
quote:
This is no judgement on whether the article is correct or not. As a matter of law, the case is likely to get dismissed if not settled. It is very, very, difficult to sue a reporter for defaming a public official, due to the NY Times v. Sullivan case. He would essentially need to prove not only that the story is false, but that the outlet new for a fact it was false, and even further that they published it for the purpose of trying to hurt him. If the outlet can even show that they had a couple of sources that alleged what was in the story, they'll likely get the case dismissed.
Source: I litigate defamation cases regularly.
LINK
Posted on 4/24/26 at 4:04 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
They cite it, then don't link it
So actual malice. Which the subject of the op would certainly prove if their sources weren’t vetted. Just as I said. I understand these cases are often not successful. That does not mean never successful. The Atlantic may have stepped in it here. The reporters statement in the OP would be the exact nail in the coffin needed. I predict a settlement.
Posted on 4/24/26 at 4:46 pm to NC_Tigah
You may be right. I was thinking more from the standpoint of the case being won overall but as you said in another post if the idea is to get discovery then DC might not be a bad venue.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News