Legal Ramifications (Part 1)

An element to the Philips story that is sure to play out in the future is the issue of defamation against certain individuals. The article makes accusations of the involvement of certain people in criminal acts, namely James Rosemond and James Sabatino, along with stating that Sean “Diddy” Combs and The Notorious B.I.G. were aware the attack on 2Pac was going to happen.

We can eliminate B.I.G. from this equation as he is dead, although I’m unsure if his estate could still claim defamation – that would be a more specific question that someone with more legal knowledge could address. Given that it appears as though Sabatino forged the documents in the story he would also have a challenging time proving he was defamed as he created the defaming documents.

This leaves Combs and Rosemond. The implication that Combs new about the shooting prior to its occurrence would make him accomplice to attempted murder. This is a serious crime and most certainly can harm Combs reputation as a business man. We will come back to him.

Rosemond has the strongest suit for libel per se – defamation charging criminality. Philips makes the accusation that the shooting and robbery of 2Pac was arranged by Rosemond.

In a defamation case there are four elements to consider. First some basic conditions must be met. The first of these is that the defamation must have occurred and the second is that the message had to be published – which in this case it most obviously did as Philips wrote it and the LA Times published it. The only caveat of defamation is that “right-thinking persons” must view the message as insulting or harmful. I think anyone would consider being accused of a violent crime as insulting and harmful. Lastly the person has to be identified – which Philips did outright in his story and referred back to him throughout the article.

The argument could be made that Rosemond is a “public figure” and therefore has to prove “actual malice” on the part of Philips and the times. While people within the music industry are aware of Rosemond he is not a musician, he is a manager and I wouldn’t consider him a person in the public eye – if the case of Combs were to go to trial given his persona he may be able to be considered a public figure, which would only harm his case as “actual malice” isn’t an easy standard to prove.

---

Be sure to check back tomorrow fort part 2 of our analysis of the legality of Philips article and the possible repurcussions.