Christopher Obekpa - PF - Our Savior New American - Centereach, NY - ST. JOHN'S

question of Public Figure and reporting the  opinions of others.

question of Public Figure and reporting the  opinions of others.

But he conducted the poll.  Its kind of like lighting the match and handing it to someone else who drops it, no?

Briefly, here's the baics... libel is written and slander is spoken. 

Here the players likely don't have a case for two reasons.  One, truth is an absolute defense to libel.  Not every detail in the article has to be true, just the substance of it.   

Second, there is a heightened barrier for "public figures".... a label courts have applied to lots of different plaintiffs, and an area where a concrete definition has largely been elusive.   Since the 60's the law requires that a public figure prove that the defendant knew what he was saying was false, or very-likely false.   This differs from ordinary persons who just need to show you lied about them, it was published (made public to others), and you suffered damages.   Public figures need to show the defendant knew what he was saying wasn't true.    And you don't need to be the President or Charlie Sheen to qualify as a public figure, courts have recognized a limited-purpose public figure.

Two things to consider in determining if the player is a public figure for this limited purpose; 1) Did they interject themselves into a controversy?   If they commented on their recruiting process, or potential violations, to the press, then that is one factor a court would consider.    2) Another factor to weigh is whether their position of prominence (even just as a star HS athlete) gives them a high degree of access to the media, and an ability to counter criticisms that ordinary persons probably cannot. 

That would be the crux of any legal argument; if the the gist of the article is not "true", and if the player is a public figure and therefore needs to prove Borzello knew he was lieing. 

Let's just agree the article is unseemly and leave it at that. 

Chris short interview with Zach B, optimistic about season;

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/collegesports/st_john_recruit_obekpa_we_can_surprise_pZqrXhizVgDgibuWRgeSFM

Briefly, here's the baics... libel is written and slander is spoken. 

Not exactly. Libel is fixed, slander is transitory. Skywritten defamation is slander. A youtube video of spoken defamation is libel.

Here the players likely don't have a case for two reasons.  One, truth is an absolute defense to libel.  Not every detail in the article has to be true, just the substance of it.   

Second, there is a heightened barrier for "public figures".... a label courts have applied to lots of different plaintiffs, and an area where a concrete definition has largely been elusive.   Since the 60's the law requires that a public figure prove that the defendant knew what he was saying was false, or very-likely false.   This differs from ordinary persons who just need to show you lied about them, it was published (made public to others), and you suffered damages.   Public figures need to show the defendant knew what he was saying wasn't true.    And you don't need to be the President or Charlie Sheen to qualify as a public figure, courts have recognized a limited-purpose public figure.

Two things to consider in determining if the player is a public figure for this limited purpose; 1) Did they interject themselves into a controversy?   If they commented on their recruiting process, or potential violations, to the press, then that is one factor a court would consider.    2) Another factor to weigh is whether their position of prominence (even just as a star HS athlete) gives them a high degree of access to the media, and an ability to counter criticisms that ordinary persons probably cannot. 

That would be the crux of any legal argument; if the the gist of the article is not "true", and if the player is a public figure and therefore needs to prove Borzello knew he was lieing.

All well and good, but the reason there's no there here is because defamation requires a false statement of fact. An opinion poll is, which is what you're talking about here - it asks which is "perceived" to be dirtiest - is, wait for it: opinion. Opinion is protected speech always. If a coach said that Player X was paid to sign with University Y that would be libel, if it weren't true.

All well and good, but the reason there's no there here is because defamation requires a false statement of fact. An opinion poll is, which is what you're talking about here - it asks which is "perceived" to be dirtiest - is, wait for it: opinion. Opinion is protected speech always. If a coach said that Player X was paid to sign with University Y that would be libel, if it weren't true.

I think it's obvious I was simplifying the medium distinctions; and in this instance there is no meaningful difference between broadcast and written.   But thank you for pointing that out.

Second, I have no interest in going back and forth on this topic - but you're factually incorrect about opinion speech being protected.   Milkovich v Lorain explicitly held their is no blanket protection for opinion statements from a defamation suit. (Overturned Getz)   The comment just needs to be provably untrue.    Writing that you "think" person X is a liar and cheat, is just a libelous as if you published it as fact in the farmers' almanac.   

And liability extends to those who republish information, not just the original source of the comments. 

Quote from: Foad on August 23, 2012, 04:12:35 PM

All well and good, but the reason there's no there here is because defamation requires a false statement of fact. An opinion poll is, which is what you're talking about here - it asks which is "perceived" to be dirtiest - is, wait for it: opinion. Opinion is protected speech always. If a coach said that Player X was paid to sign with University Y that would be libel, if it weren't true.

I think it's obvious I was simplifying the medium distinctions; and in this instance there is no meaningful difference between broadcast and written.   But thank you for pointing that out.

Second, I have no interest in going back and forth on this topic - but you're factually incorrect about opinion speech being protected.   Milkovich v Lorain explicitly held their is no blanket protection for opinion statements from a defamation suit. (Overturned Getz)   The comment just needs to be provably untrue.    Writing that you "think" person X is a liar and cheat, is just a libelous as if you published it as fact in the farmers' almanac.   

Opinion is always protected because opinion can't be proven false, and the court said as much: "statements that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual are constitutionally protected." Yes, the court declined to create "an additional separate constitutional privilege for opinion," that reasonably implies knowledge of a fact that's false and defamatory. No, this is new: merely writing that "you think" someone is X has never negated liability if X is a defamatory false fact.

Quote from: desco80 on August 23, 2012, 05:02:48 PM

Quote from: Foad on August 23, 2012, 04:12:35 PM

All well and good, but the reason there's no there here is because defamation requires a false statement of fact. An opinion poll is, which is what you're talking about here - it asks which is "perceived" to be dirtiest - is, wait for it: opinion. Opinion is protected speech always. If a coach said that Player X was paid to sign with University Y that would be libel, if it weren't true.

I think it's obvious I was simplifying the medium distinctions; and in this instance there is no meaningful difference between broadcast and written.   But thank you for pointing that out.

Second, I have no interest in going back and forth on this topic - but you're factually incorrect about opinion speech being protected.   Milkovich v Lorain explicitly held their is no blanket protection for opinion statements from a defamation suit. (Overturned Getz)   The comment just needs to be provably untrue.    Writing that you "think" person X is a liar and cheat, is just a libelous as if you published it as fact in the farmers' almanac.   

Opinion is always protected because opinion can't be proven false, and the court said as much: "statements that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual are constitutionally protected." Yes, the court declined to create "an additional separate constitutional privilege for opinion," that reasonably implies knowledge of a fact that's false and defamatory. No, this is new: merely writing that "you think" someone is X has never negated liability if X is a defamatory false fact.

thanks to all for the discouse on libel/ slander/etc.  As with any "opinion poll", the answers can be skewed by how the questions are phrased which allows political pollsters to skew things in the favor of the candidate that pays them.  I am sure this poll was skewed by composition/predujices of the respondents which we do not know.  I think we would have seen significantly different results if the poll was conducted exclusively on Kentucky's campus.  doing polls over the internet "hide" the true background of respondents as one conducted by NYV councilman Lander where responders had to tell where they live and based on those responses he forced through a bicycle lane on the outside of Prospect Park which has cost citizens of NYC over $1.5M when changes inside Prospect Park would have cost under $100K.

We have the best shot blocker in the country.... By far

Chris Obekpa Of St John's Red Storm - The Next Dikembe Mutombo & Best Shot Blocker In The Nation

Consistently keeps 80-90% of his blocks in play.  I've seen plenty of his games and that always stands out to me.  He is capable of changing games.  One thing of note, although he is not a great leaper his agility his off the charts...great hips. 

Consistently keeps 80-90% of his blocks in play.  I've seen plenty of his games and that always stands out to me.  He is capable of changing games.  One thing of note, although he is not a great leaper his agility his off the charts...great hips.

He's got solid vertical ability but isn't Darius Miles at his height.  That said, most of basketball's best shotblockers in history weren't the best leapers in the world.  Timing and feel is what makes a shot blocker.  Roman was a great rebounder because of positioning, not his vertical.  We have a fantastic one in Obekpa.  People will know his name soon.

Quote from: Marillac on November 10, 2012, 08:22:43 PM

Consistently keeps 80-90% of his blocks in play.  I've seen plenty of his games and that always stands out to me.  He is capable of changing games.  One thing of note, although he is not a great leaper his agility his off the charts...great hips.

He's got solid vertical ability but isn't Darius Miles at his height.  That said, most of basketball's best shotblockers in history weren't the best leapers in the world.  Timing and feel is what makes a shot blocker.  Roman was a great rebounder because of positioning, not his vertical.  We have a fantastic one in Obekpa.  People will know his name soon.

We're 5 games into Chris Obekpa's career.   At his current pace, he figures to become St. Johns #10 all time career shot blocker by game #17 (Ron Artest with 80 is currently #10).   Depending on how many post season games we play, at his current pace, he could become the #1 all time CAREER shot blocker in his Freshman season (Werdann is #1 with 188).   He's on pace to break the existing single season record in game 16 this season (Walter Berry's 76).   Incredible.

Obekpa will be a solid 4 year player.

Obekpa will be a solid 4 year player.

Nah.  No way he sees Senior year.  That's all I can confidently say.

Quote from: Poison on November 22, 2012, 01:36:13 PM

Obekpa will be a solid 4 year player.

Nah.  No way he sees Senior year.  That's all I can confidently say.

NBA written all over him IMO.

Quote from: Moose on November 22, 2012, 01:37:37 PM

Quote from: Poison on November 22, 2012, 01:36:13 PM

Obekpa will be a solid 4 year player.

Nah.  No way he sees Senior year.  That's all I can confidently say.

NBA written all over him IMO.

Yes just a question of when.

Quote from: redstorm212 on November 22, 2012, 01:46:02 PM

Quote from: Moose on November 22, 2012, 01:37:37 PM

Quote from: Poison on November 22, 2012, 01:36:13 PM

Obekpa will be a solid 4 year player.

Nah.  No way he sees Senior year.  That's all I can confidently say.

NBA written all over him IMO.

Yes just a question of when.

Def league bound, serge ibaka 2.0

  "great hips."


 ^^  this got a huge chuckle out of me.

Quote from: Poison on November 22, 2012, 01:36:13 PM

Obekpa will be a solid 4 year player.

Nah.  No way he sees Senior year.  That's all I can confidently say.

There's a lot of NBA talent here for a team that struggled to beat Holy Cross.