Kia Franklin
Defamation Cases Different and Similar
Let’s play a game: 1 college basketball player, 1 state Democratic Party, 1 radio host, 2 mining company big wigs, and 3 huge media institutions. What do these things all have in common? Bad-mouthing and lawsuits. In fact, bad mouthing has been a hot legal issue lately. The connection:
1. Mining Co. Big Wig #1 and 2 Media Institutions. Bob Murray, owner of the Utah coal mine where six men are trapped, is upset at some media networks (Fox News and the AP, in particular) for their coverage of the accident and of the company’s safety record. According to this article, (http://www.wvpubcast.org/radio/newsroom/Murray0808.pdf ) “Murray has been the subject of media scrutiny before for how he runs his mines, his political contributions and his threats to use his political influence to retaliate against mine safety inspectors.” Apparently Murray is financially connected to Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration.
2. 2 Huge Media Institutions, Mining Co. Big Wig #2, and a State Dem Party. Speaking of bad press and mining companies, Don Blankenship, CEO of major mining company Massey Energey Co., believes the West Virginia Democratic Party harmed his reputation. He is suing them for defamation of character, alleging that they mischaracterized his statements regarding the West Virginia mining accidents that killed 14 workers back in January, 2006.
3. 1 basketball player, 1 radio host, and 1 huge media institution. Speaking of Dons and defamation, Rutgers University basketball player Kia Vaughn stepped off one court and took her grievances against Don Imus to another, suing the former CBS radio host for his infamous “nappy headed hos” remarks. Alleging slander and defamation of character, she filed suit against Imus, his former co-host, CBS, and CBS Radio yesterday in New York State Supreme Court. Here’s what the Washington Post says about the lawsuit:
Vaughn was humiliated, embarrassed and publicly mocked for the comments, the lawsuit claims. Her attorney, Richard Ancowitz, said: "The full effect of the damage remains to be seen…This is about Kia Vaughn's good name," Ancowitz said. "She would do anything to return to her life as a student and respected basketball player--a more simple life before Imus opened his mouth on April 4."
(By the way, doesn’t Imus kind of look like he’s been trapped in a mine for a while? See below:)

Radio personality Don Imus appears on Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show, in New York in this April 9, 2007, file photo.
Photo Credit: AP
4. 1 Huge Media Institution, 1 radio show host. Okay, as I bad-mouth him, Imus is forbidden to bad-mouth CBS unless he wants to go to court. He won’t, as he threatened after being fired for the aforementioned remarks, sue the network for $120 million. They won’t counter-sue, as long as he watches his mouth and doesn’t say anything disparaging about CBS. This is one among other undisclosed settlement terms between the network and the radio host.
The Vaughn defamation case should be an interesting one to follow. None of the other Rutgers players have filed suit against Imus yet. The Massey Energy defamation case appears to be a stretch at best, if not a continuation of Don Blankenship's political gripe with Democrats. The CEO, who "has contributed millions to campaigns against Democrats in West Virginia," felt the impact of the company's $1.5 million fine for safety violations found at the mine at the time of the fire that killed mineworkers back in 2006, according to the article.
Kia Franklin: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 12:12 PM, Aug 15, 2007 in
Permalink | Email to Friend
| Comments (6)






Comments
I hope the lawyer described the process of discovery to Vaughn. I hope Vaughn informed her lawyer of any discovery "surprise" from her sexual history.
I hope the lawyer described the legal standards for defamation of public figures to Vaughn. Is Vaughn a public figure? Well, let's play all her broadcast videotapes, and lay out all the articles in which her name comes up for the jury.
What about that coincidence? The lawsuit follows the $20 mil settlement of Imus's contract dispute.
Kia: Lawyer question. If Imus is found to have defamed Vaughn, what about any republisher, including potentially, Tortdeform.com, in the very post above?
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | August 16, 2007 8:55 AM
In NY, defamatory remarks about a person's sexual character/conduct are per se actionable.
But what about the coincidence? The settlement and the defamation lawsuit were announced pretty much simultaneously, which means that Vaughn had to have been considering this before the settlement was reached.
Anyway why should Imus profit from making racist and sexist statements about innocent bystanders? And why are the basketball player's intentions under such harsh scrutiny but not Imus' intentions in making those callous remarks about the young women? Why is Vaughn the bad guy for pursuing her legal claim? She's not on trial here.
Maybe I'm just defending her because her name is Kia. I gotta say it's a nice name.
Posted by: Kia | August 16, 2007 12:49 PM
I have no criticism of Kia, Kia. I questioned the judgment of the lawyer who is not a defamation expert.
I cannot abide Imus, being a fan of his arch-enemy, Howard Stern. I have never been able to listen to the Imus show for more than 15 seconds.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | August 16, 2007 5:00 PM
Fortunately, we live in the United States rather than the United Kingdom. The basketball player Kia has a right to seek damages BUT the it will be up to her to prove that she has been damaged in some measurable way, other than simply hurt feelings.
I rather doubt she will be able to prove any real economic damages - you can even argue that she has benefited from Imus' rude remarks by raising her profile and improving her marketability. Heck, if not for this flap, I would not have a clue as to her identity
The inner cynic in me suspects that the lawsuit was filed in order for her to reap more publicity, maybe making her more employable in the media. Somehow my inner cynic is rarely wrong
Posted by: Paul W Dennis | August 16, 2007 9:16 PM
Kia: Did the plaintiff lawyer explain to Kia what Hustler said about the intimacy of the relationship between Jerry Falwell and his sainted mother, and the location of their assignations? Did he then review the holding of the Supreme Court, which remains the law of the land?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
Would you agree the review of this holding with the client represents a standard of prudent lawyer care?
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | August 16, 2007 9:25 PM
Don Blankenship is one of the biggest proponents of "Tort Reform" in West Virginia.
Oddly(or typically)he has filed several lawsuits, all frivolous, here in WV.
Those "tort reformers" seem to be ready to go to court at the drop of a hat but don't think real Americans should have that same access.
Do as we say but not as we do?
Posted by: fascismisdead | August 22, 2007 10:54 PM