if Imus sues boss for 150 million the Women should sue him an take it away...!!!

[sam sarrha]

he shouldnt profit from his behavior, the women should sue him in a class action suit ahd donate the money for womens scholarships

[Lex]

1. The women don't have a legal case.

Calling people stupid ignorant offensive names is not legally actionable.

And no, calling people stupid names doesn't rise to the level of legal slander.

[farmbo]

6. Thankfully, you are wrong. Calling a woman a whore is slander per se...

...under common law. Unless, of course, Imus proves at trial that they ARE 'Hos'.

Think that will happen?

Slander law carves out special protection for persons who have had their sexual mores challenged in public (e.g.: promiscuity or venereal disease).

Plus, the girls were not "public figures" when he stated the slander.

[Raine]

10. Wouldn't the women have to prove

that the slander had damaged them monetarily to collect? I think you have to prove that you lost jobs and advancement etc. and that is very difficult to do.

[Kingshakabobo]

14. I don't think that would pass the "reasonable person test."

Would a reasonable person believe that Imus was really saying the girls were prostitutes? Did YOU think he was calling them prostitutes? Or was he calling them "Hos", as in the popular/rap derogatory/slang term for women?

[Lex]

18. Exactly.

It wouldn't be analyzed in 18th century terminology or cultural perspective.

[Lex]

15. Thankfully you are wrong. One, the girls are at least quasi-public figures

and two, do you think that people believe he was calling their "sexual mores" into question by calling them "hos?" Is it just used as a general ugly derisive term these days (like 'bitch') OR to actual call their reputation into question?

Please.

You'd be laughed out of court.

[Richard Steele]

22. Makes sense to me. (I think)

It was just a mean-spirited insult, and not an actual
attempt to convince anyone that the young ladies were
prostitutes. So that's not over the "actionable" line.

Am I understanding it correctly?

[Lex]

23. Yes. Maybe 150 years ago calling a woman a "whore" would've

been actionable per se--that the damage to her sexual reputation would've been presumed.

These days that just wouldn't fly, one reason being that "ho" in this context is just a general slur. A nasty one, but not one actually intended to mean they are prostitutes.

That's what I'd argue anyway, if I were arguing for Imus's right to be a doddering old fool who says dumb-ass things to his own detriment.

[mduffy31]

25. Technically they were public figures

They were major college athletes, and there could be an arguement that they could be considered public figures.

[knight_of_the_star]

2. Ummm no

He's not suing to profit from what he said, he's suing because his contract was not over yet and his former employers owe him money.

[babylonsister]

3. The women forgave him, or are trying to. nt

[RL3AO]

4. Sue him for what? Hurting your feelings?

[Nikki Stone1]

5. Now if Imus had lost someone's pants, we could sue him for 65 million

But an overtly racist and misogynist statement has no financial value....

alas

[Rosemary2205]

19. LOL :) nt

[Radio_Lady]

7. Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin gave a good presentation of the case on cable news.

Each party to this contract has a sort of an escape clause. Toobin says Imus will win a settlement, but not for $40 million. He also stated it will not come to trial. Each side has too much to lose.

Net result is that CBS may have to pay, but Imus will never work in radio again.

Interesting case. Tonight on Bill Maher's program on HBO -- Bill, his guests comedian/actor Larry Shandling, and actor/director Sean Penn said the F* word several times, and mentioned "nappy hos" again.

I just realized that it's not MSNBC that's getting sued because they're cable.

I never realized that a CBS personality could even have a simulcast with an NBC cable network.

It's a new world, Moishe! Anything goes except "nappy hos"!

In peace,

Radio_Lady

[ShaneGR]

8. A contract is a contract is a contract....

They were reading the contract on CNN the other day. Not only does it say that MSNBC and CNN recognize Imus as a controversial "shock jock" it also states that he can't be fired without a warning. He was never warned under the terms of the contract. So, basically he's owed 40 million for the remainder of the funds. Now, could the Rutgers women bring a civil suit for defamation of character? maybe. But it would never see the light of day in court.

[Raine]

9. That would be ridiculous...

CBS violated his contract and that has nothing to do with the team. Anyway if the team were to go after anyone they should go after CBS because CBS encouraged and "desired" that kind of behavior and language from Imus. I hope Imus takes CBS down but good, that kind incivility starts right the top. CBS should be the ones to pay because he did what THEY wanted then they scapegoated him.

EDIT: Spelling

[soothsayer]

11. He shouldn't have even been fired. I don't like this slippery slope of free speech

curtailment. You shouldn't either.

[Iris]

13. Bullshit. He didn' t write that statement as an editorial in a newspaper or a magazine.

It was entertainment and part of a business, not free speech. His show is controlled by a corporation and they have a business to run. If sponsors refuse to support what he says, there's no speech at all.

In a culture where the "market" controls everything, it controls speech as well.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

17. Actually, newspapers fire columnists all the time

Ann Coulter has been dropped from several papers. Free speech has nothing to do with it, it's called editorial discretion. And frankly, I wish it would start being exercised a little more these days.

[Iris]

21. well, newspapers need advertisers, too.

But, I know what you mean. I'm tired of "free speech" being interpreted as anyone has the right to say anything, no matter how inaccurate or just plain wrong, and no one should challenge them on it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

16. No one took Imus' free speech away

He wasn't arrested, he wasn't even fined by the FCC. The government wasn't involved in any way. I don't know where you work, but anyone at my company who used that phrase while on the job would be fired ASAP. Why should Imus be any different?

[nam78_two]

24. Oh for heaven's sake

How long is this "free speech for Imus" thing going to have legs.

His speech has NOT been curtailed. He can sit in his home (or go out on the street though that would probably get him a few looks) and call people "nappy-headed hoes" or "stinking animals" or whatever all day and all night long for all anyone cares. The same way the Stormfront types can sit in their mom's basements and whine about "the joos" controlling media of whatever it is that floats their moronic boats. The advertisers bailed out-he is off the air.End of story.

I am really hoping that no one in the Free-Speech-For-Imus crowd gets the idea of making an Imus version of the gagged Sibel Edmonds pic :yoiks:.

[UTUSN]

12. So his apologies are null and void. n/t

[hiaasenrocks]

20. His contract stipulates that he profit from his behavior.

That's what they paid him to do for almost 35 years.

That's why he's very likely going to win this case, or at the very least obtain a very favorable settlement.