Thinking Fool

No comment from me, but Joe Hawk of the Las Vegas Review-Journal had this to say: "However, since the performance came against the woeful Toronto Raptors (14-27), it's worth two-thirds as much -- 54 points. Then you factor in the Canadian-to-U.S. conversion rate and it's really only 47 points... Overlooked by fans: Bryant also set a career high with two assists."

Cool take by Mr. Hawk, but you can't really fault a guy for not having many assists when you score 81 points, even if he is a douche bag.

Could the doctoring of that photo get you nailed for libel and/or slander?

Not that I'm saying you should be sued. It's effing hilarious. I choked on my Pepsi. Nice work. :)

Excellent questions, BLS. I’m no lawyer – oh wait, I am! Here’s my take on whether Kobe can sue me and win. If someone disagrees, by all means, let me know.

Regular defamation requires the plaintiff to prove the following: that there was (1) defamatory language (2) of or concerning the plaintiff, (3) publication of that language to a third person, and (4) damages.

Obviously everybody should know that my blog entry referred to Kobe Bryant, satisfying the second element. I also fully admit to publishing my words to third parties, i.e. all my readers! Thus, Kobe can prove element number three. However, as for element number one, defamatory language, name calling isn’t sufficient. I must have actually adversely affected Kobe’s reputation and made a statement based on specific facts and expressed those specific facts. So, if I had written, “Kobe raped so and so on Sunday night,” that would be specific. Merely writing something like “when it comes to scoring, Kobe doesn’t take no for an answer” doesn’t really grasp me as rising to the level of a specific factual allegation. (Plus, it’s kind of hard to argue that I’m adversely affecting his reputation in any manner.) As for damages, they’re presumed since my words were in written form.

HOWEVER, if a court disagreed with me and thought my language was in fact defamatory, I’d still have some excellent backup options. Since Kobe is a public person and his rape trial and basketball games were/are of public concern, the Constitution would require Kobe to prove two more things! First, he’d have to prove that my statements were false! Second, he’d have to prove that I made them with actual malice, i.e. with knowledge that my statements were false or with a reckless disregard as to whether they were false.

I can assure you that I do not think my statements were false. After reading what Mr. Bryant said during his Colorado police interrogation, let’s just say that I won’t be setting him up with my sister. Aileen Wournos (if we could bring her back to life), certainly! That’d be a hell of a match! But women I actually like or love, not so much.

In other words, I won’t retain any lawyers quite yet. (Then again, you're reading the words of someone who didn't knock the ball out of the park in either of his Constitutional Law classes, though I did pretty well in Torts.)