Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Utah Jazz' started by fallenchicken, Jul 30, 2014.
I guess his charity thing didn't work out, so might as well give some money back. Didn't trey go and personally apologize to the guy and he was all happy about it?
It's America dude. If you can make a tobacco company pay the widow of a ceased chain smoker 23.6 billion dollar, why not try and see what happens when you sue people acting condescending on twitter.
I can see the precedent you are talking about BTP. But I hope he loses. They were classless and foolish to mock him but isn't that freedom of speech? I don't like the weakening of it that I see this doing
Would that extend to aliases on message boards?
good for him
I'm going to wait and see how this plays out and then sue one of you.
This is a case of possible defamation and discrimination. While I also agree that freedom of speech is a freedom we've done a ****ty job of upholding, this however, is not a violation of the accused trio's freedom of speech (although the defense will likely try to argue that if this isn't settled out of court). Defaming someone is not a right, and neither is discrimination--for good reason.
None of the accused denied him and benefits or services so it's not discrimination in the way you are implying. If this is passed it allows the way forward for any case where anyone says something you don't like. Very poor precedent. Very poor.
I agree that he probably can't sue them. But they're still dicks. I think Burke might have been really sorry. Shaq however is a grown man. And a very rich man. And I wouldn't root against him getting some of that Shaq money, even though he probably doesn't have a case.
Shaq has always been a major douche imo, a bully of sorts, who imo, ruined the Kobe-Shaq duo that could've perhaps gone on to win 4, 5, who knows, 6 in a row.
I'm no lawyer but I don't remotely see how this is defamation or discrimination.
dat boy just want some $$
This guy has no case AND he's suing rich people?
Hell get some charity "stop whining" money, just because the dudes will feel bad and ish.
The Jim Henson Company, creator/owner of the Muppets franchise, has a team of investigators/attorneys reviewing old Jazzfanz.com posts with the intent of handing down defamation lawsuits against posters that have mocked or ridiculed company frontman Kermit the Frog with embarassing comparisons to Ty Corbin.
First of all, if what gets passed? Binnion isn't seeking a new law, he is acting on current ones that he believes have been violated. Again, what were you thinking when you said "If this is passed it allows the way forward for any case where anyone says something you don't like(?)"Even if this was a proposition for a new law (which it isn't), the ramifications would not be what your are projecting. This is specific, covering discrimination/defamation (the latter is already illegal, and the first is under certain circumstances). No new and scary precedent is being set.
": the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people"
In terms of the EEOC's circumstances, the discrimination that occurred is unprotected, but only because it didn't happen at, or in connection to Binnion's place of business. Otherwise, it would likely be protected under the discrimination and harassment clauses.
Racism can be racism without being illegal, as can discrimination. Coupling the unpleasantness of discrimination (even if only out of negligence) with the real chance that this was defamation, and something could be made of Binnion's suit.
See link above. This could very esily be defamation. Linguistically, it is discrimination. Legally, it misses being discrimination by where and who, not what.
I'm opening up lawsuits against all Jazzfanz members who have ever made fun of me.