Last month, Micheal Ray Richardson, the coach of the Continental Basketball Association’s Albany Patroons, lost his job after reports in the local paper, the Albany Times Union, that he had allegedly made anti-Semitic and anti-gay comments. Now Richardson, according to reports, is planning to file a lawsuit against the newspaper this week for $5 million for defamation for these news reports. Obviously, if the newspaper report was false, Richardson would have a strong case. But I think he may want to work on his arguments just a little bit:
Richardson, a former Knicks first-round draft pick, did not deny that he uttered the gay slur at a group of fans that were harassing him, but said that it was not meant as a homophobic slur.
Moreover, although he claims that his comments were mischaracterized, with one exception, he doesn’t seem to deny his remarks about Jews, either:
“Micheal recalls saying ‘Jewish lawyer,’ not ‘Jew,’ ” his lawyer, John Aretakis, told The Post.
Oh. I might have been inclined to take this lawsuit more seriously, except that the lawyer’s name struck my eye. It’s our old friend, John Aretakis. (I guess meritless lawsuits against the Catholic Church don’t pay all the bills.) But at least he doesn’t pretend it isn’t about the money:
“This is stupid political correctness gone mad,” said Aretakis, who told The Post that representatives from the Times Union asked him, “Would an apology make this lawsuit go away?”
“The answer is no,” Aretakis said.
Unfortunately for Richardson, if media reports are right, Aretakis — besides misspelling his own client’s name — seems to have misunderstood the legal standard for defamation, inventing a theory of “malice” (based on the notion that the reporter was getting revenge on the team because his car was towed by the team two years ago) that ignores the requirement that the story be untrue.
5 Comments
But truth is a defense to be pleaded and proven by the defendant. Falsity is NOT an element of defamation. Be that as it may, he’s probably hosed.
I’m too alarmed about the now-daily firings, suspensions and smearings of everyone and his brother for making politically incorrect remarks to concentrate on the merits of this case. And this fellow is apparently black! We’ve now entered the age of racial McCarthyism, where the accusation of “bigot” is an indictment, trial and conviction all wrapped up in one.
I understand that an employer is free to can someone for the slightest of reasons, and that if it doesn’t like un-PC remarks, it can fire away. Is it so good that this principle has no limit? What will be the ultimate effect of this? One might say that viewed as a strict matter of freedom of contract, it’s perfectly OK.
The problem is that it’s a dangerously imbalanced “freedom.” There are massive restrictions on what can be done vis a vis hiring and firing in America, and they are heavily loaded in favor of certain groups. If I did not appreciate an employee’s “black power” cubicle decorations, I could not dismiss him over that because the resulting lawsuit would go as we all expect. Imagine a “white power” cubicle decoration, though.
So while freedom of contract is great, I can’t get too excited about it in the present political context.
Well, it may not be actionable defamation, but certainly getting an opportunity to portray Richardson as badly as possible seemed to be the goal of the reporter.
I note that the reporter introduced his own far more stereotypical racila slur into the conversation, allegedly as an instructive analogy, but he merely published it and said no more.
Richardson is a man trained to be a basketball player. There tends to be a lack of etiquette training in this field.
Reaching back to an earlier post, it is apparently acceptable to use the term gay as a perjorative that was learned in youth, but faggot is unacceptable because gay doesn’t mean gay while faggot does.
This is a strain, but isn’t the fact that people are are insulted and seemingly outraged when a person of unknown sexuality is called homosexual an indication that they are in fact bigoted against homosexuals themselves?
You stupid piece of crap! That’s not nice (imputing lack of intelligence and lack of humanity)
You ugly rat! That’s not nice (imputing lack of physical normalcy and lack of humanity)
You faggot! That’s not nice (imputing homosexuality – what’s wrong with that?)
David, the reporter’s car was towed the same day he interviewed Micheal Ray, not 2 years previous…get your facts straight man!
Joe: Reading is fundamental. From the New York Post article I linked to:
The crux of the lawsuit, however, is Richardson’s allegation that Ettikin was simply seeking revenge on the Patroons following a 2005 incident that resulted in the reporter’s car being towed.