|
The B_36 posted:Not to defend ESPN, but isn't there a possibility that Simmons comments could be construed as libelous against Goodell? He blatantly called him a liar, and he would have to actually prove that is the case to avoid being sued for that right? I haven't followed this Ray Rice case, but how hard/easy would it be to prove that Goodell lied in his press conference and had actually seen the tape? At least I could see ESPN saying that's why they suspended him - to avoid them being drawn into a lawsuit. There is zero chance Goodell wants to be deposed about this. No way the NFL would sue. Which I grant you is very different from saying that what Simmons said wasn't libelous.
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
The B_36 posted:Not to defend ESPN, but isn't there a possibility that Simmons comments could be construed as libelous against Goodell? He blatantly called him a liar, and he would have to actually prove that is the case to avoid being sued for that right? I haven't followed this Ray Rice case, but how hard/easy would it be to prove that Goodell lied in his press conference and had actually seen the tape? At least I could see ESPN saying that's why they suspended him - to avoid them being drawn into a lawsuit. Part of the quote is 'I think that dude is lying' which probably protects against any of that, before we even get into all of the other reasons it probably wouldn't fly. On the other hand the NFL might have have rattled ESPN's cage over things and court is expensive even if you've got a ton of money so who knows? Not a lawyer or anything of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Simmons says loving bullshit a couple times and then calls Goodell a liar a bunch of times. How is that suspensionworthy, at all? Particularly when suspending him is just going to bring even more attention to the comments which otherwise wouldn't have particularly been all that noteworthy. I wonder if he would have still gotten suspended if he didn't do the "if you say I'm in trouble I'm going public" bit at the end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
The NFL has far more powerful options to gently caress with ESPN than Roger Goodell suing them for libel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
It is really really hard to successfully sue for slander/libel in the US. Also not a lawyer, but I think you would have to prove that Simmons knew that Goodell was telling the truth or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
I wonder if a memo of sorts went out before he did his podcast. Just seems like his daring them to come down on him came from something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:There is zero chance Goodell wants to be deposed about this. No way the NFL would sue. The NFL would get laughed out of court if they tried to sue. Goodell is a public figure. To get a libel/slander judgment he would have to prove not only that what Simmons said wasn't true but that Simmons believed that it wasn't true and said it anyway in an effort to maliciously damage Goodell. The law, at least in the US, is set up such that you can pretty much say whatever the gently caress you want to about famous people and there is very little anyone can do about it. Legally speaking, anyway. You can obviously use your massive financial clout to bully your media-bootlicker into suspending the guy who said it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^ Blarrrgh, I slander you! JoeCL posted:It is really really hard to successfully sue for slander/libel in the US. Also not a lawyer, but I think you would have to prove that Simmons knew that Goodell was telling the truth or something like that. It's extremely difficult if the "victim" is a no-name citizen. If it's a public figure, it is borderline impossible. There is literally not a single element of a successful libel case here, the NFL/Goodell wouldn't even bother to do it as a nuisance suit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:^^^^^^^^ Legally speaking, though, what if the NFL were really dumb and determined to handle this in the worst possible way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
One of my friends is swearing up and down it's (the suspension is) about the swearing. I'm not into podcasts - does Simmons not usually swear?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Was Taters posted:One of my friends is swearing up and down it's (the suspension is) about the swearing. Not all the time, but he does, and his guests do, and it just gets bleeped. edit: Reading about this on Deadspin linked me to that Bill Polian thing and wow that is way way more egregious than this Simmons stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
There is swearing on the podcast from time to time. It's always just been bleeped out. Also  at how much attention this is getting from Twitter and who is supporting him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:It's extremely difficult if the "victim" is a no-name citizen. If it's a public figure, it is borderline impossible. There is literally not a single element of a successful libel case here, the NFL/Goodell wouldn't even bother to do it as a nuisance suit. What's more, certain states offer protection against such nuisance suits. If I recall, there can be penalties for filing what's known as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) if the courts deem that the lawsuit was simply intended to suppress free speech.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
While I completely agree with what he said (mainly in regards to the hypocrisy of the Payton/Saints thing and also him just spouting "I've admitted I made a mistake, let's just move on" during the entire presser), but I do love the whole "I hope some idiot tells me I'm gonna get in trouble for saying this. I'm not gonna get in trouble. It's my podcast, I can say what I want." *immediately gets a 3 week suspension* aspect of the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:Looks like they pulled the Ombudsman post that praised Simmons too. still there? http://espn.go.com/blog/ombudsman/post/_/id/453/espn-flexes-journalistic-muscle-on-rice pretty hosed up if they censor the ombudsman lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
It came back after being gone for a while. Someone either told them how loving idiotic they were being or they had some sort of problems with their site. ... So someone told them you can't loving do this and employ an Ombudsman basically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Simmons sucks sometimes, but he's a savvy motherfucker and if they push him too far, he will go above and beyond to burn that place to the ground.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:Also That's not that surprising. Simmons has had Dunham on his podcast multiple times and is a big champion of her work. I will be curious to see if this suspension causes any of the writing talent at Grantland to bolt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
So It Goes posted:It's pretty likely his contract has many protections for ESPN including non-compete type stuff and the fact ESPN likely owns many of things he is associated with including his podcast and everything relating to Grantland. It would likely be a huge legal battle if he quit on bad terms with ESPN to start up new endeavors. Non-competes can't exercise a monopoly power to prevent him from working. Talent travels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:Simmons sucks sometimes, but he's a savvy motherfucker and if they push him too far, he will go above and beyond to burn that place to the ground. There's like...zero chance of this happening. But I have the same forlorn hope that you do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:Simmons sucks sometimes, but he's a savvy motherfucker and if they push him too far, he will go above and beyond to burn that place to the ground. Simmons entire life is tied to Grandland/ESPN.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Non-competes can't exercise a monopoly power to prevent him from working. Talent travels. also they are unenforceable in a number of states, including California. Is that where he lives now? idk
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
At some point the NFL has to realize that protecting Goodell is just not worth the effort considering how replaceable he is. I get that some part of this is surely about teaching ESPN a lesson but goddamn, just get another white guy to wear a suit in front of the cameras and read the script. poo poo, I'd do it for $40k. Hire me, NFL. I am less trouble than Roger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
davecrazy posted:Simmons entire life is tied to Grandland/ESPN. He can sit on his fat stacks of cash for a while and go do the same poo poo somewhere else. It'll take him the length of his non compete just to sort through the loving mountain of offers he'll have to do the same exact poo poo for someone else. The only reason Grantland hasn't folded is Simmons' name. He's essentially a walking ATM at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Politicalrancor posted:also they are unenforceable in a number of states, including California. Is that where he lives now? idk He lives in LA. Not sure if this would be state or federal issue though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Tokyo Sex Whale posted:Legally speaking, though, what if the NFL were really dumb and determined to handle this in the worst possible way? Sure, they could do it. But as was pointed out, some states have SLAAP statutes, and even without those, there is no judge in the country that wouldn't boot the thing in a heartbeat. A first year law student could get this kicked out of court. I could get this kicked and my legal qualifications consist of being married to an attorney. 1. Roger Goodell is a public figure and therefore the threshold to prove slander/libel is pushed higher than it already is in the U.S. Strike one against the NFL. 2. The NFL would have to prove that Simmons knew that he was lying about Goodell. Not just, "He can't prove Goodell is a liar," not that Simmons wasn't sure about his opinion, but that he knew Goodell wasn't a liar. Strike two, because they'd first have to prove that Goodell wasn't lying (truth is an absolute defense against libel), good luck with that. If they pulled off that miracle, they'd have to have evidence, not mere suspicion, that Simmons knew that, and how do you do that? Find a tape of him saying, "Hey, Goodell is telling the truth, but I'm going to get that son of a bitch,"? 3. The NFL would have to prove that Simmons did it not as an honest expression of his opinion, but because he wanted to harm Goodell. Again, just about impossible to prove. EDIT: On that point it might be easier if you can say that "harming" Goodell is trying to drive him out of his job. Get your rear end out of my courtroom!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
He's not quitting and not being fired. He'll make some passive-aggressive statements later on and will continue to be paid tons of money by ESPN where his work will be seen by more eyeballs than anywhere else in the sports world. If you listen to his podcast with Nate Silver you can see why he isn't going to run off and start his own site. And the NFL isn't suing anyone. They'll just have their media partners censor those who hurt their image.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Simmons has also said he'd follow wherever the NBA TV deal went, so if either Turner or the NBA itself would let him do what ESPN currently is, I'd imagine he'd jump in a heartbeat and Olbermann some bridges on the way out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:Simmons has also said he'd follow wherever the NBA TV deal went, so if either Turner or the NBA itself would let him do what ESPN currently is, I'd imagine he'd jump in a heartbeat and Olbermann some bridges on the way out. I'd think he could take "Grantland" wherever he went. Obviously not all at once due to contract lengths but if Simmons made clear he was taking all the Grantland talent whenever their contracts came up. I think Simmons has the pull to bring nearly everyone with him and as soon as the rats started leaving that ship it would torpedo it. That said I doubt anything will come of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
I want to know so bad what he means by "go public". Either he burns ESPN or himself and I love it either way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Lockback posted:I want to know so bad what he means by "go public". Either he burns ESPN or himself and I love it either way. I think he meant that he would publicly call out whoever was giving him poo poo for his comments about Goodell. edit: another suspension disparity. someone on twitter pointed out that ESPN suspended Sean Salisbury for just a week after he got busted for indecent exposure. Evidenrly Simmons should have just whipped it out in front of Goodell. Redgrendel2001 fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
TNT would love to have Simmons, even if he's not the best on TV. But I'm sure they would support a Grantland site too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
I work for the same corporate family as Simmons and our standards/corporate policy are written so arcanely that they could nail you for wiping your rear end the wrong way so I'm guessing this is the tip of the iceberg and Simmons went to war with his bosses behind the scenes and lost and this was used to partially justify the punishment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
Jay Carney posted:I work for the same corporate family as Simmons and our standards/corporate policy are written so arcanely that they could nail you for wiping your rear end the wrong way so I'm guessing this is the tip of the iceberg and Simmons went to war with his bosses behind the scenes and lost and this was used to partially justify the punishment. He's had an ongoing battle with them about "standards" for a long time, but I wonder how much of a role the NFL had in the suspension. Sidenote: The /r/NFL portion of a certain other website spent all of yesterday deleting any thread mention this story 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
davecrazy posted:Simmons entire life is tied to Grandland/ESPN. As lovely as he is a lot of the time, he's the biggest sportswriter/sports personality in the country by a wide margin. He'd be fine. Someone else would give him a huge deal like five seconds after he hit the market. This whole thing seems more like him wanting to act like a rebellious teenager and thumb his nose at dad than him actually being a crusader for journalistic integrity, but it's still an incredibly silly and tone deaf suspension, particularly in comparison to how they handled Smith (or in comparison to all the ridiculous and patently false poo poo they let guys like Cowherd and Bayless say every day). Though I do think the suspension has a lot more to do with him daring them to do it than it does with what he said about Goodell. Olbermann torched Goodell and called for him to resign a few days. MourningView fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Redgrendel2001 posted:He's had an ongoing battle with them about "standards" for a long time, but I wonder how much of a role the NFL had in the suspension. I think it's pretty easily assumed this suspension happened because the NFL demanded it. And the language of ESPN's statement strongly hints, for me anyway, that the NFL phrased its demand along the lines of "it would sure be a shame if something happened to that gigantic TV contract that your employee just technically violated..." From ESPN's perspective the smart thing to do was ignore it altogether, it was just Simmons being Simmons. But no way in hell was Goodell going to let that slide. e: But it's possible this is strictly a pissing match between Simmons and his ESPN bosses, who have been established to hate one another for a while now Eric the Mauve fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Espn looks so stupid and tone deaf here. Just incredibly stupid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:I think it's pretty easily assumed this suspension happened because the NFL demanded it. And the language of ESPN's statement strongly hints, for me anyway, that the NFL phrased its demand along the lines of "it would sure be a shame if something happened to that gigantic TV contract that your employee just technically violated..." quote:A source said the NFL did not contact ESPN to complain about the comments, and that the suspension has more to do with his calling out ESPN execs than his remarks on Goodell. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Morning-Buzz/2014/09/25/Bill-Simmons.aspx
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
Yes, and it's inconceivable that the NFL could be lyiohwait. fakeedit: Oh, it was "a source". Well then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 17:15
|
|