Defence21 wrote:AlexPKeaton wrote:Defence21 wrote:Actually, it would be libel against the publication which printed the story. It is the publication's responsibility to determine the validity of the source. As a former writer for a daily newspaper I have seen this second hand on numerous occasions.
I'm not saying one way or another with The PensBlog, as I highly doubt that is the issue, as others have pointed out. I simply wanted to clarify the libel confusion.
If a famous person related to the Pens sexually harassed my wife, I am allowed to report it online without finding any other witnesses. It would be up to the person suing me to prove that it did not happen in order for them to actually win the case. If this was not the case, how does tmz.com, valleywag, etc. stay in business?
That's beside the point. What i am saying is that it is up to the publisher to determine the validity of the sources. It has nothing to do with number of sources and, really, nothing to do with the sources in general. If a source has information that is damaging and he/she tells that to a friend, it's going nowhere. But if he/she tells it to a newspaper, magazine, tabloid, blog, etc, it is going everywhere. The source may be in trouble for passing the misinformation along, but the publication also is in trouble for publishing information that is inaccurate and damaging. Again, i have seen this take place with the publication I worked for on numerous occasions -- luckily I was not the one in question.
This is from wikipedia:
Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.
According to that, the plaintiff has to prove that the information was false AND the defendant is at fault. So lets just assume for the sake of argument that ESPN could prove that he was in a different city at the time. In order to win a case against Pensblog, they would have to convince a judge that Pensblog shouldn't have trusted the source. Not sure how easy or hard that would be to do. Any lawyers on here?