Libel?
I found this front page on SportsDesigner.com and decided to post it becaues it is on the same topic as my other post regarding the New York Times front page about baseball players and supplement use.
This page is taken from The Trentonian, and talks about MLB Steroid use. Obviously, the title is meant to crack a joke on Clemens and the debate on his steroid usage.
To me, this violates every point we talked about in class concerning libel when dealing with a private figure. Sportsdesigner says that they story is technically accurate, as the trainer testified to injecting steroids "in the butt." Do you think this constitutes libel?
Obviously, Clemens is a public figure so he would have to show that the media acted with actual malice. In my opinion, while this title is tasteless and horrible it does not constitute actual malice if the article is showing support and evidence from the trainer. What do you think about this title and should it have been published?
5 comments:
In my opinion, tasteless but libel-free.
Tasteless the headline is indeed, but libelous? I think not. Technically, it is accurate if he admited to taking the injections in the rear. And as long as the words are true in their face, I think they should not constitute libel. Of course, they can easily be misconstrued to mean he is homosexual, but why is that so bad? We all know that homosexuality is still somewhat taboo, but to say that accusing someone of being gay constitutes libel is to infer that there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality.
But this isn't a moral debate so I'll leave that at that.
In any case, I don't think the headline constitutes libel because Clemens admitted to doing just that. But just because the headline is not libelous does not mean it should have been published. The headline is in very poor taste and shows that editors at The Trentonian are willing to sacrifice class (and accuracy) for misguided attention.
I agree that this headline is very tasteless. At first glance something comes to mind, and without reading this article, one may take away only false information about Clemens sexuality. I do not think this is grounds for libel, however.
Considering the Kato Kaelin trial were he sued for libel after a headline wrote "He did it," I think it is possible for Clemens to at sue for libel. As Jessica said, the headline does reference homosexual acts and even if the intention was not to talk about Clemens participating in homosexual acts, that is the idea that the headline conjures up. Bringing up a lawsuit might scare The Trentonian to settle out of court out of fear to how this could turn out.
I realize the time is now 2:23 and this isn’t for credit, but I’ve started to enjoy this blog…
I'm not familiar with this paper, but even if it is the most unreliable tabloid, it should still have some taste. The headline is supposed to be funny and playful, but promotes ignorance.
Post a Comment