NBA ref sues Twolves writer for tweet about corrupt officiating

[Rondo2287]

Just wondering... isn't the ability to tweet considered free speech? I don't see how a court can rule in favor of the ref under the 1st amendment.

It can be considered slander or libel I would think.  If the ref denies he said it and it defames his character and could bring his competence towards doing his job into question.

I can only assume the writer is in a position of power and thus could be sued on the basis that his word may mean more than the average fan, then? Cause let's face it, fans slander the refs all the time.

Well I mean once he puts it in writing its out there, and this isnt an opinion, this is something he is declaring as fact.

[Roy H.]

Just wondering... isn't the ability to tweet considered free speech? I don't see how a court can rule in favor of the ref under the 1st amendment.

"Free speech" doesn't mean you can say anything you want.  Defamation law allows you to recover damages if somebody lies about you and it damages your reputation.  There are certain "de facto" types of lies that are automatically actionable, including saying somebody has a "loathsome disease", lying about their ability to perform their job, and a couple of others.

Of course, the truth is an absolute defense to a defamation lawsuit.

[Finkelskyhook]

IMHO

The information we get in this blog is far more accurate than what I read or hear in the media.  At least when I read an article in here I assume it's for most part based on fact.

I assume the opposite when I watch television or listen to news media.

[mgent]

For the record, are there really any NBA fans out there that think make up calls don't exist?

[Tai]

For the record, are there really any NBA fans out there that think make up calls don't exist?

Naive ones? 

[incoherent]

Pretty corrupt is the NBA official, no doubt.

Most likely what will happen is Rambis will support the ref's story in exchange for some more calls against the opponents of the T-wolves.

[Spilling Green Dye]

What David Stern fails to realize is that by being so stubborn and talking down to anyone who suggests the referees could do better, the problem will keep arising. 

Stern is one of those rare commissioners who IMO get a grade of 'A' in some things, and an 'F' in others.  I think the league would be much better off if he stepped down and took a role only as a mediator between the owner's and players during the negotiations.

[Finkelskyhook]

Pretty corrupt is the NBA official, no doubt.

Most likely what will happen is Rambis will support the ref's story in exchange for some more calls against the opponents of the T-wolves.

I doubt it.  Spooner isn't within striking distance of being one of worst refs.  Actually, there are very few bad refs.  Most NBA refs don't want the game to be about them...With a few exceptions (Javie, Crawford, Bavetta).

But they're obviously getting a directive to officiate stars differently.  They can't all have the exact same wrong interpretation of traveling when a few select players travel....The exact same interpretation of obvious flops.  To swallow their whistles at exactly the same time when certain players get in foul trouble.  Etc Etc.  The officials are way too talented to screw up calls as consistently as they do with a few select players.

[CaliCeltics]

For the record, are there really any NBA fans out there that think make up calls don't exist?

Naive ones? 

Laker fans.... or at least the ones I know.

[Eja117]

Even if he did say "You'll get it back" it doesn't necessarily mean he was saying he'd get a make up call.

It could just be encouragement, or maybe he planned on a non-call.

The NBA and refs aren't going to be able to sue people into believing they aren't corrupt. If anything it makes me more sure they are corrupt.


Must have hit pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like that.

[guava_wrench]

Just wondering... isn't the ability to tweet considered free speech? I don't see how a court can rule in favor of the ref under the 1st amendment.

"Free speech" doesn't mean you can say anything you want.  Defamation law allows you to recover damages if somebody lies about you and it damages your reputation.  There are certain "de facto" types of lies that are automatically actionable, including saying somebody has a "loathsome disease", lying about their ability to perform their job, and a couple of others.

Of course, the truth is an absolute defense to a defamation lawsuit.

Yeah, buy doesn't the court decide what is true?

[guava_wrench]

Just wondering... isn't the ability to tweet considered free speech? I don't see how a court can rule in favor of the ref under the 1st amendment.

It can be considered slander or libel I would think.  If the ref denies he said it and it defames his character and could bring his competence towards doing his job into question.

I can only assume the writer is in a position of power and thus could be sued on the basis that his word may mean more than the average fan, then? Cause let's face it, fans slander the refs all the time.

Considering how reckless 'journalists' have become, it is good to see them answering for irresponsible misrepresentations of events.

[Finkelskyhook]

Just wondering... isn't the ability to tweet considered free speech? I don't see how a court can rule in favor of the ref under the 1st amendment.

It can be considered slander or libel I would think.  If the ref denies he said it and it defames his character and could bring his competence towards doing his job into question.

I can only assume the writer is in a position of power and thus could be sued on the basis that his word may mean more than the average fan, then? Cause let's face it, fans slander the refs all the time.

Considering how reckless 'journalists' have become, it is good to see them answering for irresponsible misrepresentations of events.

Very well said