As we continue to analyze the situation at the LA Times and Chuck Philips article, I'm considering what the legal repurcussions will be. Yesterday I considered the basic conditions of a defamation suit, today we look at the defenses and possible outcomes of the case. If you missed part 1, check it out here!
---
The next matter to examine within defamation cases is the defense. The courts automatically accept the truth as a defense; however in this case it has already been proven that the truth is not what was reported. The next option for the Times is to argue that because of Rosemond’s reputation as a criminal (he does have a record for drug offenses) the story doesn’t damaged his persona anymore. While this is a likely argument Rosemond’s criminal acts are in his past and unless proven otherwise he has become a successful business man. Regardless of the many accusations levied against Rosemond over the years (his history in the streets is constantly questioned and analyzed) he is still innocent until proven guilty and the only crime he has been proven guilty of is one for which he has served his time. The last defense is that the speech is privileged, but this doesn’t apply to this case.
Proving libel per se automatically grants you damages – but facts can be introduced to enlarge or lower the amount in which those damages are. These monetary damages are determined by a jury. While specific damages are unlikely, Rosemond has continued his business since the story with little to no interruption, general damages – those which relate to the seriousness of the defamation and how much harm was inflicted by the defamatory act. Lastly there are punitive damages which serve as punishment to the defamer when the libel is particularly harmful.
I’m not a lawyer; however Rosemond and his attorney have both stated they intend to take full legal action whether it be civilly or criminally. As I’ve outlined here he is positioned best to have a case of libel per se. If Philips story had held up and not been discredited I would say that the case would be unlikely to proceed, however since it has come out that the documents were forged the accusations made from them become that much more dangerous and libelous.
As I reported in my analysis of what went wrong with this article I pointed out that a lawyer could have, and almost certainly should have, looked at what was being reported and what the facts were. The Times has hindered their defense in admitting that a lesser number of editors than normal reviewed the story and I do believe that Rosemond has a very good case of proving libel per se.
---
This article couldn’t have been possible without the assistance of this book:
Herbeck, Dale A. and Thomas L. Tedford. Freedom of Speech in the United States: 5th Edition. 2005. State College, Penn.: Strata Publishing, Inc.
Showing posts with label Jimmy Rosemond. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jimmy Rosemond. Show all posts
Friday, June 6, 2008
Thursday, June 5, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)