The Swamp

the offensive line variable can't be overlooked in the Jets' offensive situation (and the big reason why a Rodgers' comeback doesn't make sense, even if they somehow got into the playoff picture. he'd be a sitting duck back there)

eta: don't get me wrong, QB quality is still the major factor

Why is McAfee apologizing for Rodgers and why does he keep putting that loon on his show?

What are you watching McAfee?

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 1:47 pm What are you watching McAfee?

You don't have to watch - it is everywhere now - the news and fallout from that last appearance.

In all seriousness, McAfee probably wants to distance himself from Aasshole’s comments (love that moniker), lest he get dragged into a defamation suit.

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 1:50 pm In all seriousness, McAfee probably wants to distance himself from Aasshole’s comments (love that moniker), lest he get dragged into a defamation suit.

If so, mcafee is the literal embodiment of hot dog costume guy meme

Double-checking my law school memories of defamation but "just trying to talk shit" may not be a technical defense.

I hope to hell Kimmel sues Rodgers and McAfee.

I listened to 2:45 of incoherent mumbling and I'm not sure WTF is going on. Did Rodgers accuse Kimmel of being pedophile?

The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 2:14 pm I listened to 2:45 of incoherent mumbling and I'm not sure WTF is going on. Did Rodgers accuse Kimmel of being pedophile?

Said that Kimmel was among those that didn't want the Epstein client list made public because he is on it. Basically called him a pedophile.

tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 2:14 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 2:14 pm I listened to 2:45 of incoherent mumbling and I'm not sure WTF is going on. Did Rodgers accuse Kimmel of being pedophile?

Said that Kimmel was among those that didn't want the Epstein client list made public because he is on it. Basically called him a pedophile.

Yeah, defamation 101 should Kimmel pursue it.

eta - Both Kimmel’s broadcaster and ESPN are owned by Disney. If Kimmel wants to sue Aaron Rodgers for defamation, ESPN would get added to the suit, in which case, Disney may seek to sever their relationship with Kimmel. Or…they may just turn against Pat McAfee. I think we would all be a fan of that outcome.

I don't think Kimmel would win it if he actually sued Rodgers

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:16 pm I don't think Kimmel would win it if he actually sued Rodgers

All that Kimmel would need to do is prove Rodgers words caused harm to Kimmel (and threats against his family count). Rodgers can’t hide behind making jokes to earn a living, and yeah, ESPN / McAfee wouldn’t be out of the woods either.

It’s not quite analogous but Bollea vs Gawker might serve as precedent. $100m would shut Qaaron Rodgers up right quick.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:05 pm

tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 2:14 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 2:14 pm I listened to 2:45 of incoherent mumbling and I'm not sure WTF is going on. Did Rodgers accuse Kimmel of being pedophile?

Said that Kimmel was among those that didn't want the Epstein client list made public because he is on it. Basically called him a pedophile.

Yeah, defamation 101 should Kimmel pursue it.

eta - Both Kimmel’s broadcaster and ESPN are owned by Disney. If Kimmel wants to sue Aaron Rodgers for defamation, ESPN would get added to the suit, in which case, Disney may seek to sever their relationship with Kimmel. Or…they may just turn against Pat McAfee. I think we would all be a fan of that outcome.

I would think that as far as Disney is concerned, Kimmel is a much more valuable asset than McAfee.

Pruitt IV wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:42 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:05 pm

tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 2:14 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 2:14 pm I listened to 2:45 of incoherent mumbling and I'm not sure WTF is going on. Did Rodgers accuse Kimmel of being pedophile?

Said that Kimmel was among those that didn't want the Epstein client list made public because he is on it. Basically called him a pedophile.

Yeah, defamation 101 should Kimmel pursue it.

eta - Both Kimmel’s broadcaster and ESPN are owned by Disney. If Kimmel wants to sue Aaron Rodgers for defamation, ESPN would get added to the suit, in which case, Disney may seek to sever their relationship with Kimmel. Or…they may just turn against Pat McAfee. I think we would all be a fan of that outcome.

I would think that as far as Disney is concerned, Kimmel is a much more valuable asset than McAfee.

Good point. ESPN is paying McAfee to in fact, pay Aaron Rodgers to spew his nonsense weekly, and this time he slandered Jimmy Kimmel. The ‘he was just talking shit’ defense is not actually a defense, as it helps Kimmel prove Rodgers was acting without thought.

I just don’t see a late night talk show host suing over this. Kimmel makes his money making of fun of famous people and I’m sure most of what he says is an exaggeration. I’m sure he has said plenty of things bordering on slander. I mean, he did a skit as Karl Malone in black face. Not to mention, he has the perfect platform to hit back. OTOH, does anyone other than my parents watch late night talk shows? I guess a good bit will get some YouTube or social media play.

But his show is considered satire, I'm sure, which is covered as protected speech. Rodgers was just spouting off like the fuckstick he is and he went too far. I don't think Kimmel will sue, but if Trump can lose a defamation suit, Aaron Rodgers sure as fuck can.

And strongly suggesting that a guy is a pedophile who enjoys sex with exploited women is a bit harsher than making fun of Matt Damon.

Pruitt IV wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 8:56 am And strongly suggesting that a guy is a pedophile who enjoys sex with exploited women is a bit harsher than making fun of Matt Damon.

I wasn't implying it's remotely the same thing, just saying it's a bad look from a guy who makes a living making fun of famous people. From the very infrequent clips I've seen, Kimmel is brutally mean to people he doesn't like, notably Trump, the My Pillow Guy and Ted Cruz, but seeing those assholes ripped apart fits my algorithm and clips my parents would send me, so that's my exposure.

I haven't seen Rodgers' comment, so I don't have an opinion on whether he was making a legitimate accusation or on off-hand joke. To AB's post, I have no doubt Rodgers isn't above a court finding he slandered someone, I just can't imagine Kimmel make a big deal out of this. One, I can't imagine he is all that upset, and if he is, he would go on a tear of making fun of Rodgers on his show. Or he would avoid it and it'll be forgotten in 3 days.

I think if he actually IS upset, he will not say anything about Rodgers outside of that statement. Because that will just muddy it all. I don't watch regularly, but I think if he went on a rant it would show up in an algorithm for me somewhere.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:28 pm

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:16 pm I don't think Kimmel would win it if he actually sued Rodgers

All that Kimmel would need to do is prove Rodgers words caused harm to Kimmel (and threats against his family count). Rodgers can’t hide behind making jokes to earn a living, and yeah, ESPN / McAfee wouldn’t be out of the woods either.

He has to prove "actual malice". I believe that his response calling Rodgers a soft-brained wacko for not distinguishing reality from fiction is an actual defense that Rodgers could use.

Pruitt IV wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 8:56 am And strongly suggesting that a guy is a pedophile who enjoys sex with exploited women is a bit harsher than making fun of Matt Damon.

Elon Musk did that out of thin air and still didn't lose.

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 11:13 am

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:28 pm

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:16 pm I don't think Kimmel would win it if he actually sued Rodgers

All that Kimmel would need to do is prove Rodgers words caused harm to Kimmel (and threats against his family count). Rodgers can’t hide behind making jokes to earn a living, and yeah, ESPN / McAfee wouldn’t be out of the woods either.

He has to prove "actual malice". I believe that his response calling Rodgers a soft-brained wacko for not distinguishing reality from fiction is an actual defense that Rodgers could use.

If Kimmel’s family is put into danger, and thus requires extra security because of Aaron Rodger’s proclamation, that is the malice he would need to sue. Kimmel clapping back at Rodgers shouldn’t hold any bearing. Rodgers is a quarterback capable of deciphering hundreds of defensive formations, and checks down as well as any QB in the past 75 years (honestly, who gives a shit, but the notion Kimmel calls him a soft brain whacko really won’t hold any bearing as to the malice Rodgers is capable of).

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 11:29 am

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 11:13 am

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:28 pm

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:16 pm I don't think Kimmel would win it if he actually sued Rodgers

All that Kimmel would need to do is prove Rodgers words caused harm to Kimmel (and threats against his family count). Rodgers can’t hide behind making jokes to earn a living, and yeah, ESPN / McAfee wouldn’t be out of the woods either.

He has to prove "actual malice". I believe that his response calling Rodgers a soft-brained wacko for not distinguishing reality from fiction is an actual defense that Rodgers could use.

If Kimmel’s family is put into danger, and thus requires extra security because of Aaron Rodger’s proclamation, that is the malice he would need to sue. Kimmel clapping back at Rodgers shouldn’t hold any bearing. Rodgers is a quarterback capable of deciphering hundreds of defensive formations, and checks down as well as any QB in the past 75 years (honestly, who gives a shit, but the notion Kimmel calls him a soft brain whacko really won’t hold any bearing as to the malice Rodgers is capable of).

It's been 20+ years, but I think malice goes towards the Defendant's knowledge of the truth of the statement at the time the statement was made. Malice is whether Rodgers knew the statement was false and has nothing to do with putting Kimmel or his family in danger. It's a measure of the mental state of the person making the comment and outside facts of what other people do because they heard the statement doesn't change the determination of malice. That could go towards increasing liability as a result of actual damages to the Plaintiff. Without doing any research, I'd guess there are differences in the elements of defamation across states, but probably not a huge amount of variation as there are major Supreme Court cases on the matter.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 12:11 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 11:29 am

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 11:13 am

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:28 pm

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:16 pm I don't think Kimmel would win it if he actually sued Rodgers

All that Kimmel would need to do is prove Rodgers words caused harm to Kimmel (and threats against his family count). Rodgers can’t hide behind making jokes to earn a living, and yeah, ESPN / McAfee wouldn’t be out of the woods either.

He has to prove "actual malice". I believe that his response calling Rodgers a soft-brained wacko for not distinguishing reality from fiction is an actual defense that Rodgers could use.

If Kimmel’s family is put into danger, and thus requires extra security because of Aaron Rodger’s proclamation, that is the malice he would need to sue. Kimmel clapping back at Rodgers shouldn’t hold any bearing. Rodgers is a quarterback capable of deciphering hundreds of defensive formations, and checks down as well as any QB in the past 75 years (honestly, who gives a shit, but the notion Kimmel calls him a soft brain whacko really won’t hold any bearing as to the malice Rodgers is capable of).

It's been 20+ years, but I think malice goes towards the Defendant's knowledge of the truth of the statement at the time the statement was made. Malice is whether Rodgers knew the statement was false and has nothing to do with putting Kimmel or his family in danger. It's a measure of the mental state of the person making the comment and outside facts of what other people do because they heard the statement doesn't change the determination of malice. That could go towards increasing liability as a result of actual damages to the Plaintiff. Without doing any research, I'd guess there are differences in the elements of defamation across states, but probably not a huge amount of variation as there are major Supreme Court cases on the matter.

We likely had the same torts professor, but this is my memory of malice as well.

Kimmel should just go punch him real hard

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 11:29 am

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 11:13 am

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:28 pm

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:16 pm I don't think Kimmel would win it if he actually sued Rodgers

All that Kimmel would need to do is prove Rodgers words caused harm to Kimmel (and threats against his family count). Rodgers can’t hide behind making jokes to earn a living, and yeah, ESPN / McAfee wouldn’t be out of the woods either.

He has to prove "actual malice". I believe that his response calling Rodgers a soft-brained wacko for not distinguishing reality from fiction is an actual defense that Rodgers could use.

If Kimmel’s family is put into danger, and thus requires extra security because of Aaron Rodger’s proclamation, that is the malice he would need to sue. Kimmel clapping back at Rodgers shouldn’t hold any bearing. Rodgers is a quarterback capable of deciphering hundreds of defensive formations, and checks down as well as any QB in the past 75 years (honestly, who gives a shit, but the notion Kimmel calls him a soft brain whacko really won’t hold any bearing as to the malice Rodgers is capable of).

I think it does if while clapping back, he accused Rodgers of something that can be used as a credible defense in a defamation suit.

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:31 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 11:29 am

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 11:13 am

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:28 pm

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:16 pm I don't think Kimmel would win it if he actually sued Rodgers

All that Kimmel would need to do is prove Rodgers words caused harm to Kimmel (and threats against his family count). Rodgers can’t hide behind making jokes to earn a living, and yeah, ESPN / McAfee wouldn’t be out of the woods either.

He has to prove "actual malice". I believe that his response calling Rodgers a soft-brained wacko for not distinguishing reality from fiction is an actual defense that Rodgers could use.

If Kimmel’s family is put into danger, and thus requires extra security because of Aaron Rodger’s proclamation, that is the malice he would need to sue. Kimmel clapping back at Rodgers shouldn’t hold any bearing. Rodgers is a quarterback capable of deciphering hundreds of defensive formations, and checks down as well as any QB in the past 75 years (honestly, who gives a shit, but the notion Kimmel calls him a soft brain whacko really won’t hold any bearing as to the malice Rodgers is capable of).

I think it does if while clapping back, he accused Rodgers of something that can be used as a credible defense in a defamation suit.

So, because Aaron Rodgers only said Jimmy Kimmel hopes that list never comes out, and not JIMMY KIMMELZ IS A PEDOPHILE, all is good? Cuz he was too stupid to know what he was saying was hurtful, or smart enough to employ plausible deniability?

And to a larger point, what the hell is ESPN doing having Pat McAfee interview Qaaron Rodgers weekly for these asinine takes, anyway? It’s this senseless bedding with the lowest common denominator that really makes me wonder what’s the use?

Oh, and fuck Joe Rogan too.

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 12:54 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 12:11 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 11:29 am

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 11:13 am

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:28 pm

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:16 pm I don't think Kimmel would win it if he actually sued Rodgers

All that Kimmel would need to do is prove Rodgers words caused harm to Kimmel (and threats against his family count). Rodgers can’t hide behind making jokes to earn a living, and yeah, ESPN / McAfee wouldn’t be out of the woods either.

He has to prove "actual malice". I believe that his response calling Rodgers a soft-brained wacko for not distinguishing reality from fiction is an actual defense that Rodgers could use.

If Kimmel’s family is put into danger, and thus requires extra security because of Aaron Rodger’s proclamation, that is the malice he would need to sue. Kimmel clapping back at Rodgers shouldn’t hold any bearing. Rodgers is a quarterback capable of deciphering hundreds of defensive formations, and checks down as well as any QB in the past 75 years (honestly, who gives a shit, but the notion Kimmel calls him a soft brain whacko really won’t hold any bearing as to the malice Rodgers is capable of).

It's been 20+ years, but I think malice goes towards the Defendant's knowledge of the truth of the statement at the time the statement was made. Malice is whether Rodgers knew the statement was false and has nothing to do with putting Kimmel or his family in danger. It's a measure of the mental state of the person making the comment and outside facts of what other people do because they heard the statement doesn't change the determination of malice. That could go towards increasing liability as a result of actual damages to the Plaintiff. Without doing any research, I'd guess there are differences in the elements of defamation across states, but probably not a huge amount of variation as there are major Supreme Court cases on the matter.

We likely had the same torts professor, but this is my memory of malice as well.

She was pregnant when I was in her class, so likely out on leave when you took Torts, unless she was back in the Spring. Hint, she went on to become the Dean of the Law School.

Can’t remember a woman’s name even in a position of power smh

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 3:23 pm

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 12:54 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 12:11 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 11:29 am

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 11:13 am

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:28 pm

All that Kimmel would need to do is prove Rodgers words caused harm to Kimmel (and threats against his family count). Rodgers can’t hide behind making jokes to earn a living, and yeah, ESPN / McAfee wouldn’t be out of the woods either.

He has to prove "actual malice". I believe that his response calling Rodgers a soft-brained wacko for not distinguishing reality from fiction is an actual defense that Rodgers could use.

If Kimmel’s family is put into danger, and thus requires extra security because of Aaron Rodger’s proclamation, that is the malice he would need to sue. Kimmel clapping back at Rodgers shouldn’t hold any bearing. Rodgers is a quarterback capable of deciphering hundreds of defensive formations, and checks down as well as any QB in the past 75 years (honestly, who gives a shit, but the notion Kimmel calls him a soft brain whacko really won’t hold any bearing as to the malice Rodgers is capable of).

It's been 20+ years, but I think malice goes towards the Defendant's knowledge of the truth of the statement at the time the statement was made. Malice is whether Rodgers knew the statement was false and has nothing to do with putting Kimmel or his family in danger. It's a measure of the mental state of the person making the comment and outside facts of what other people do because they heard the statement doesn't change the determination of malice. That could go towards increasing liability as a result of actual damages to the Plaintiff. Without doing any research, I'd guess there are differences in the elements of defamation across states, but probably not a huge amount of variation as there are major Supreme Court cases on the matter.

We likely had the same torts professor, but this is my memory of malice as well.

She was pregnant when I was in her class, so likely out on leave when you took Torts, unless she was back in the Spring. Hint, she went on to become the Dean of the Law School.

Nope. I had Ward Farnsworth, (not the dude who followed P. Diddy around with an umbrella in videos) who went on to become dean of Texas Law.

Ryan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 3:37 pm Can’t remember a woman’s name even in a position of power smh

Oh, I remember her name. Just prefer not to drop names that might tie me my avatar.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 2:33 pm
So, because Aaron Rodgers only said Jimmy Kimmel hopes that list never comes out, and not JIMMY KIMMELZ IS A PEDOPHILE, all is good? Cuz he was too stupid to know what he was saying was hurtful, or smart enough to employ plausible deniability?

No, because Aaron Rodgers might be able to show that he believed this to be true, there is no malice.

No amount of umbrage is going to change actual defamation laws.

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 8:59 am

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 2:33 pm
So, because Aaron Rodgers only said Jimmy Kimmel hopes that list never comes out, and not JIMMY KIMMELZ IS A PEDOPHILE, all is good? Cuz he was too stupid to know what he was saying was hurtful, or smart enough to employ plausible deniability?

No, because Aaron Rodgers might be able to show that he believed this to be true, there is no malice.

No amount of umbrage is going to change actual defamation laws.

Yeah I don’t believe this to be true.

The four elements to a defamation case:

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

I can’t say on national TV that Aaron Rodgers diddles children, even if I believe it to be true, because the onus is on me to source my work, or at the very least, do my homework.

Actual malice can be met by that level of negligence, no?

According to the Digital Media Project:

In a legal sense, "actual malice" has nothing to do with ill will or disliking someone and wishing him harm. Rather, courts have defined "actual malice" in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either

knowing that it is false; or

acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity.

I get that they’d need to get into Aaron Rodger’s state of mind, but the latter clearly meets the definition of defamation, which would suggest the four pillars to a defamation case I posted earlier (Cornell Law’s) would at least be met enough to suggest that yeah, Kimmel might win that lawsuit.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 10:40 am

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 8:59 am

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 2:33 pm
So, because Aaron Rodgers only said Jimmy Kimmel hopes that list never comes out, and not JIMMY KIMMELZ IS A PEDOPHILE, all is good? Cuz he was too stupid to know what he was saying was hurtful, or smart enough to employ plausible deniability?

No, because Aaron Rodgers might be able to show that he believed this to be true, there is no malice.

No amount of umbrage is going to change actual defamation laws.

Yeah I don’t believe this to be true.

The four elements to a defamation case:

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

I can’t say on national TV that Aaron Rodgers diddles children, even if I believe it to be true, because the onus is on me to source my work, or at the very least, do my homework.

Actual malice can be met by that level of negligence, no?

The tests will vary state to state based on case law and precedence, but IIRC, the Plaintiff has the burden of proving the Defendant knew or should have known the statement was false. Its a difficult burden in most cases, and unless you have proof that that you provided solid evidence of the falsity of the statement and they say it again, it's damned hard to prove what someone else knew. This is why defamation cases aren't all that common, because it's hard to prove. And that's by design, because we don't want to chill free speech.

Side note, I was discussing RFK Jr.'s credibility with someone recently, and they mentioned that the claims in his book The Real Anthony Fauci must be true, because nobody sued him. People let false shit slide without suing all the time because it's expensive to sue, takes forever, and it's a difficult burden to meet, even if the statements aren't true.

Is this the reason everyone says the word "allegedly" so they have a sort of plausible deniability or something?

This is great (could also go in the comedy or podcast thread):