So many LOLs.

First, ESPN tries to do a hit-job OTL on Sean Payton, to show what a mean jerk he is. Except they don't bother to interview some of the people they claim have problems with him.

And as far as the lawsuit goes, the NFL has been saying that they delayed disciplining the players at the NFLPA's request, and Roger Goodell even gave a sworn statement to that effect. But Scott Fujita's affidavit says he spoke to Goodell on March 20, and that “Goodell told me he would be coming down hard with punishments on the Saints coaches, but that with respect to Saints players, he was not quite sure what he had on them, and that player punishments therefore would take some time.” This is roughly the same thing he said in an interview in June.

So someone's lying.

BTW, the judge in Vilma's lawsuit said the following:

Is this true? I'm unfamiliar with the jurisprudence on defamation, but the first case I looked up gave me this (I'm presuming this is under LA law, of course):

“Four elements are necessary to establish a defamation cause of action: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (3) fault (negligence or greater) on the part of the publisher; and (4) resulting injury.” Trentecosta, 96-2388 at 10, 703 So.2d at 559 (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 558 (1977)). The fault requirement is often set forth in the jurisprudence as malice, actual or implied. See, Cangelosi v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets, 390 So.2d 196, 198 (La.1980).....
....In Louisiana, defamatory words have traditionally been classified into two categories: those that are defamatory per se and those that are susceptible of a defamatory meaning. Lemeshewsky v. Dumaine, 464 So.2d 973, 975 (La.App. 4 Cir.1985). Words which expressly or implicitly accuse another of criminal conduct, or which by their very nature tend to injure one’s personal or professional reputation, even without considering extrinsic facts or surrounding circumstances, are considered defamatory per se. Kosmitis, 28,585 at 4, 685 So.2d at 1180; Lemeshewsky, 464 So.2d at 975; 12 CRAWFORD, LOUISIANA CIVIL LAW TREATISE: TORT LAW § 17.8 at 315. When a plaintiff proves publication of words that are defamatory per se, the elements of falsity and malice (or fault) are presumed, but may be rebutted by the defendant. Kosmitis, 28,585 at 4, 685 So.2d at 1180. The element of
injury may also be presumed. Id.

Goodell has clearly accused Vilma of actions that are criminal in nature (the intent to injure). Vilma can - and already has - presented evidence that that accusation is false (multiple witnesses and affidavits). I would think the presumption would be in his favor on the other elements. Knowing nothing else about defamation jurisprudence, I would assume Vilma has a pretty strong case.

the 3rd element is anything but presumptive for the plaintiff and it's the reason you see so few successful defamation suits

Do you have case law on this? B/c it's directly contradicted by the case law I just cited.

One more time, specifically addressing the third (fault/malice) element:

(3) fault (negligence or greater) on the part of the publisher... Trentecosta, 96-2388 at 10, 703 So.2d at 559 (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 558 (1977))....
The fault requirement is often set forth in the jurisprudence as malice, actual or implied. See, Cangelosi v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets, 390 So.2d 196, 198 (La.1980)....
When a plaintiff proves publication of words that are defamatory per se, the elements of falsity and malice (or fault) are presumed... Kosmitis, 28,585 at 4, 685 So.2d at 1180.

Is there any question that Goodell "expressly or implicitly accuse[d]" Vilma "of criminal conduct"? B/c I think that's pretty clear. If so, Goodell's statements should be defamatory per se. Is there something I'm missing here?

1) The defamation suit is in federal court and I don't believe it was removed to federal court so I don't believe Louisiana and it's wackiness are the choice of Law.

2) In common law jurisdictions defamation suits involving public figures such as Vilma never offer the same per se standard:

edit - this is what Louisiana Tort Law § 19.02 [8] says:

I haven't looked closely at what law would apply, but is there any federal law on defamation? I'm having a hard time remembering my civ pro and choice of law, but I would assume the court would be applying LA law. If not, what else?

With respect to the "media defendant", I think that's clearly distinguishable. That's intended to protect news media and the like; there's no way Goodell falls under that.

With respect, b/c I certainly don't claim to know the law with any certainty, I think most people commenting that Vilma's defamation claim has no legs are from common law jurisdictions and just making an assumption based on a passing familiarity with this type of case.

Are any of you familiar with the actual law being applied in this case? If the defamation claim is ever actually heard after all the procedural issues are resolved, what law will apply? If LA law, it seems Vilma has at least a fair chance of prevailing. Unless there's some additional jurisprudence clarifying or contradicting the law I cited earlier.

Edit: I'm a little ashamed about how little civ pro I actually remember. Please forgive me if I'm way off base here.

The choice of law actually doesn't matter here since SCOTUS has outlined a minimum first amendment threshold involving public figures and matters of public concern. So the first case, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Company, is what matters.

BUT Media and non-media defendants are treated alike with regards to public figures and matters of public concern:

That makes a lot more sense then. It wasn't clear from the original SCOTUS quote that the basis for the ruling was 1st Amendment issues. I just assumed the ruling was pursuant to the relevant state law they were applying.

I think also that even if it was a per se defamation standard that doesn't necessarily mean that Vilma's case has merit since it's such an easy presumption for the NFL to rebut. The problem for the league is in that case everything they have becomes discoverable and they obviously don't want that.

I think the players have been done wrong in this thing (maybe partly because of their own shortsightedness wrt the CBA) but it's pretty easy for Goodell to show that he made the comments in earnest amidst a sea of evidence that he interpreted to implicate Vilma (even if he's lying).

https://twitter.com/SI_JimTrotter/st...54899078717440

oh hai

O.J was found not guilty also but we all know the truth. Same applies to these idiots.

haha. suck it haters.

now, for the coaches...