What are the best vintage, investment-type players in your opinion?

[calvindog]

It’s still libel, not slander.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

It’s still libel, not slander.

LOL, He should have clicked on the link in his copy paste of the definition of slander.

[G1911]

I would be happy to be corrected on this tiny point if anyone can show how fuddjcal's accusation does not meet the terms of the non-legal definition I highlighted. How did he not make a "false and damaging statement about (someone)", the sense I used it in?

[calvindog]

He potentially did. In a libelous statement.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by calvindog

He potentially did. In a libelous statement.

Okay. I'm just going to keep using what my dictionary says and you can write them a letter to correct the non-legal rendition if you think this is a sensible use of your time.

[Lorewalker]

Not that I was asked but libel pertains to false statements through written words whereas slander pertains to false statements through spoken word. Legally there are hurdles for both but will leave that to someone who has actually been to law school to explain.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Not that I was asked but libel pertains to false statements through written words whereas slander pertains to false statements through spoken word. Legally there are hurdles for both but will leave that to someone who has actually been to law school to explain.

Well, I'll take a crack at it.

In this case, the narrow and semantic question about whether potential defamatory speech is libel or slander is less relevant than whether Mike Trout could win a lawsuit because someone claimed that his teammates hate him.

Basically, the question hinges on whether (1) Mike Trout is considered a public figure (and how "public" he is) and, if so, (2) whether the speaker knew his statement was false or was reckless with regard to the statement's veracity.

I am not a defamation law expert, but in this case, I suspect it is very unlikely that Mike Trout would win a defamation case. As a very high profile professional athlete, he is a public figure in a layman's sense. And even though he is not a public official (the Supreme Court was most concerned with the freedom of the press to write liberally about public officials), he has broad access to the press, which is viewed as important because it means that he is likely to have a platform with which to defend himself against or refute the claim that his teammates hate him. This makes it extremely likely (perhaps even legally settled -- a defamation law expert could tell us) that a court would find that Mike Trout is a public figure with respect to comments regarding his role as a baseball player (and perhaps even comments that are unrelated to his role as a baseball player).

If Mike Trout is deemed a public figure, then you'd have to prove that the speaker's comment that Mike Trout's teammates hate him was made with reckless disregard for its veracity. And this would practically be an impossible standard to reach as any fan or talking head can have an opinion about how a star player is viewed by his teammates. See, for instance, all the people who claim that Aaron Rodgers is hated by his Jets teammates.

Happy to have my summary challenged by a currently practicing attorney.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by G1911

Okay. I'm just going to keep using what my dictionary says and you can write them a letter to correct the non-legal rendition if you think this is a sensible use of your time.

I know how very important it is for you to be accurate about things so I just wanted to correct you. You’re welcome.