Attorneys - question about Spanier and defamation of a public figure

[mn78psu83]

Spanier obviously qualifies as a public figure, and he acknowledges as much in the suit. The standard is higher and Spanier's suit refers to Freeh's actions as both "malicious" and "reckless" - the standard for a public figure winning a defamation case. Our overall bias and already derived forum conclusions aside, how difficult will it be for Spanier and his team to demonstrate "malice" and "recklessness" on Freeh's part in the actual court of law?

 

[Pardlion]

I think the gist of the argument is that Freeh frames people for money, and did so with Spanier.

If a jury buys that, then Freeh is toast.

Is that an easy argument? No, but Freeh has some trouble on his hands.

 

[Obliviax]

he also had a nondefimation clause in his PSU contract(s)

which was clearly violated by PSU BoT, as well as their agent, LF. Now, damages may be harder to ID and damages are used to define penalty once a suit is won. However, I don't think Spanier is really looking for money, he's looking for vindication. (he's trying to get lost money from lost contracts post being PSU president) But that's not a lot of money. I feel like he's really hoping to discredit Freeh so he can get on with his life.

 

[jls83]

standard for public figures is statements known to be false or issued with reckless disregard to the truth of falsity of that which is asserted therein. Spanier will have no problem meeting the standard of proof if his allegations of an intentional frame up are proven.

this is another interesting case in that much like the Paterno's, I don't believe Spanier is in this for the money. hence, I don't see Freeh and PSU waiving a 7 or 8 figure settlement check at Spanier and getting out of this. I think Spanier wants the truth to come out, and the only way that happens is discovery, depositions and trial.

the unique aspect of this suit is the targeted defendants.

 

[demlion]

To win spanky must show "actual malice." YThis means either publishing

something you KNOW to be false, or publishing something with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. The "something" obviously must be something which injures the plaintiffs reputation.

That said, these are always difficult cases. If a plaintiff's lawyer is just looking to make a buck, he would much rather have a guy rearended at a redlight by a drunk doctor driving a Coca-Cola truck.

They are usually NOT going to be dismissed without some discovery being done, though. And this is where the pain comes in for Freeh

 

[Fayette_LION]

"actual malice." as in assigning Spanier responsible for JS after

the 1998 incident had no findings. I think that is malice with a capital M

 

[simons96]

Re: "actual malice." as in assigning Spanier responsible for JS after

Originally posted by Fayette_LION:
the 1998 incident had no findings. I think that is malice with a capital M

more to the point, the suit singles out that Freeh even acknowledged in the report that Sandusky was properly investigated by law enforcement, but then gives that cutesy, "Spanier allowed him to retire in 1999 as a distinguished faculty member and not a child predator" bullsh*t. it was baffling the first time I read it, and still seems like a complete d*ck move by Freeh with intended malice