The old thread about the Rutgers-Imus brouhaha was closed so I had to start a new one. Seems one of the women is suing Don Imus and CBS for damaging her reputation.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/bask...t.ap/index.html

I hope the young woman wins. Imus did cause the young women emotional pain, undue public attention, ridicule and humiliation. He defamed her and should have to pay for it financially. Imus is a bastard. His racist, sexist, homophobic, antiSemitic and transphobic humor is vile in the extreme.

I'm inclined to disagree. This is another example of how our nonsensical tort system is being abused. Yes, the comments that Don Imus made were certainly egregious and reprehensible in nature. However, what damage was caused to the girl's reputation? Is she unable to find work? Will she not be drafted by the WNBA? Is she losing out on endorsement deals?

In my opinion, Kia Vaughn is an opportunistic and litigious "martyr". At least she had enough decency to not list a dollar amount on the lawsuit, because how can you really put a value on something like this? The only way to seek compensatory damages is if one of the aforementioned consequences occurred. She may seek punitive damages, but I would hope that no jury would award her any. If she wins, I will lose complete faith in our legal system.

Imus did more damage to himself than any of those women...although if he's going to be back on the airwaves soon, as is being speculated, maybe not.

FP, on this we agree. Imus did himself more harm than he did to the entire Rutgers women's basketball team. While he isn't exactly a saint, he is far from the demon that some on here would portray him as being. No, instead, he is merely human, capable of making such an egregious mistake as the one he made. I am sure he knows it now and is ready to be a responsible member of the media.

While I don't agree with the lawsuit because Imus (no matter how much of a son of a bitch he is) is entitled to free speech, at least the actual lawsuit in motion will hopefully cause him to think twice the next time he thinks about saying something foolish. I don't think the man's livelihood should have been taken away from him and will be fine with him being back on the air somewhere. He should've had a suspension originally and not have been fired. I originally was calling for his firing but after really looking at the situation, a suspension without pay would've sufficed. Its just that once the sponsors started pulling away, he was done!! In the end, its all about the bottom line. If he hasn't learned his lesson after all this and ends up in the same situation down the line, then shame on his dumb behind.

I wonder if this girl has ever willingly paid to see a movie or paid for a CD or download of music or watched a TV show or bought a book that degraded women with such language I bet she has and I'm sure she hasn't sued the directors, musicians, producers, movie studios, TV networks, authors, songwriters, etc.

And what song out there ever has SPECIFICALLY referred to the Rutgers Women's basketball team being "nappy headed ho's". The difference in what you are saying is that none of those things SPECIFICALLY reference her. She is a part of that team that Imus specifically referenced so I'm not quite sure I understand the comparison.

This is a sad development because I thought Kia and the other players handled themselves so well in the press conference and ended the incident on such a high moral ground. This seems opportunistic to me. She saw Don Imus getting money from his lawsuit and saw an opportunity to try to get some of that. It's just adding to this Summer of Shame.

Aha! I'm glad you pointed this out, Maddog. Yes, this is a crying shame that the Rutgers women's basketball team had the moral high ground. That is no longer the case with Ms. Vaughn choosing to go the litigious route and bring that moral high ground right back to the ground. Money, or the scent thereof, can do such terrible things to people in general.

It is really unfortunate that the previous thread about Imus had to be closed because a poster(some posters?) could not wage a civil conversation.

I stumbled on this interesting article from the Boston Globe about the subtle, and not so subltle, racism of Jerry Falwell, and how it was little mentioned, if at all, upon his death. It is as though there were some magical absolution from certain past ill behavior just by dieing.

The soft racism of Ronald Reagan, with much harsher consequences due to the power of his office also mentioned in the article does not surprise me in the least.

However the previous racist comments by Imus are, I must admit, news to me - not having listened to any of the hate-filled talk shows that I hear populate the airwaves.

But it was very disturbing to read this story by one of the two hosts of a show that Imus' return may displace. There seems to be a trend in this country toward silencing civil conversation and promoting ratings-gathering bloviation. It seems that, like me, most people just don't bother listening to the other side.

There's no way to prove that his adolescent remarks did any specific damage to anyone but himself. These girls are athletes, surely they have thicker skin than this. "Sticks and stones, etc."

Clearly there's a lawyer and perhaps a family behind this woman thinking that maybe there's an easy settlement to be made....the greed will overshadow the original folly.

Imus has had a long history of racist, homophobic, and sexist remarks. So if one of those girls files a lawsuit against him, oh freaking well. More frivolous lawsuits have been filed.

I would say she's damaged her reputation more by sueing than she ever was by anything Imus said. Nobody knows who was on that Rutgers team, but now because of this she's somewhat known and not in a good way. Only Springer or the University perhaps had any standing to sue.

Didn't Imus reference the girls of the Rutger's University basketball team in his comments? So why exactly would Stringer or the University be more entitled to sue than one of the players for whom the comment was directed? As for the reputation of the girl, I haven't heard anything about her or her lawsuit since the initial story came out. Imus, however, was back in the news last week for asking a guest on his new show if he was gay since he doesn't like Mike Huckabee.

Imus made a dumb joke. There is no getting around that. Hardly anyone heard it when it was said. That would have been the end of the story, but no. The coach, Al Sharpton and everyone else had to drag these women-who just played great collegiate basketball-out into the public eye, put them on a stage, pointed at them and said "Look at these poor little girls...They're victims! That mean old man made a joke and it's going to affect these poor little innocent weak girls for the reste of their lives...FEEL BAD FOR THEM NOW!"

And George is dead on about buying CD's and watching movies, etc...with far more degrading language.

I think the many people who watched and listened to Imus' show when he originally said it heard it. This particular "joke" as you call it simply struck a chord with Americans. The same way Michael Vick's dogfighting case struck a chord with the nation, even though dogfighting is happening in this country as we speak, well....the same is the case with the Imus situation. Furthermore, these were young college women who had just achieved something, only to go on to be called nappy headed ho's. And please spare me the CD and DVD buying with more harsh words. Once again its about to whom the words are directed. Imus was referring directly to the Rutgers women's basketball team. I don't think Ludacris' last album made any reference to the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team specifically. I am not feeling sorry for Imus here at all. He simply picked the wrong group this time to make one of his crass remarks. You reap what you sew. This time he got stepped to. Oh well.

I mean I watch movies in which the "n" word is used and which "fa**ot" is used. Of course I'm not going to sue the studio people. However, if Imus referenced me specifically, it would be in my right to sue him. Would I do it? No. I think that people are way too sue happy these days and while I am defending the girl's right to sue Imus, I still roll my eyes at it. But, whatever. Its her right and decision to do so. But, going back to the analogy. Its just not a good one. I don't quite get the point you were trying to make, particularly when Imus specifically referenced the Rutgers women's basketball team.

You say it would be your right to sue if you chose to, but you wouldn't. Let me ask you this....Why? Why wouldn't you sue? Just curious.

Comparing dog-fighting with a group of basketball players getting called 'nappy-headed ho's?" Are you serious, mdterp? Have you had your morning coffee yet? They have no right to sue...simply no grounds.

Imus is a jerk. Michael Vick is a criminal.


The girls on the Rutgers team are not victims. They're accomplished athletes. If they haven't moved on from this, that's just sad. We don't need any more victim mentality.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree with this one. The point I was making with the dogfighting is the fact that incidents happen all the time. This isn't the first we've heard about dogfighting. This isn't the first negative remark we've heard from some ignorant white guy against black people. However, for whatever reason, these two incidents struck a chord with people. And yeah...she does have the right to sue. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a lawsuit in motion. What community college did you get your law degree from? ANYONE has "THE RIGHT" to sue. Now, we can agree or disagree on the frivilousness of the lawsuit itself. But oh yes...they do have "THE RIGHT" to sue. This isn't Jim Crow anymore. Us "colored folk" do have rights now.

Chill...I wouldn't sue because Imus isn't worth the energy. I mean I'd be like whatever man. What would be the point? However, thats me. Just because you and I and others wouldn't sue doesn't mean that any of those girls don't have the right to sue. We all see things from different perspectives. Fortunately, I can try and put myself in someone else's shoes, rather than be on my soapbox and wagging my finger as if my word is the be all, end all, know all. GMAFB!!

I'm sorry, is that "Give Me A f**kin' Break"? I'm not fully up to date with the slang you kids are using these days. I'm still trying to get used of "pwned"

Anyhoo, thanx for the "I'm a better person that you Chill-Trick" post. It was quite enlightening.

I'm not on any soapbox, and my word is my opinion and mine alone. I don't tout it as the final word for all. I wouldn't do that, I'm not a republican.

And I didn't say the girls don't have the right to sue. Of course they do, this is America.

"Us colored folks" That's a tedious and unwarranted comment.

Of course she's has the 'right' to sue...that's what most frivolous lawsuits claim...but does she have the grounds? Does being called a nappy headed ho actually cause her any concrete problems? Hardly. Turning the situation into an advantage (lemons into lemonade) is understandable but what? She wants Imus to pay her for the insult? Get real. She'd be better advised to get on with her life.

No I'm not saying I'm better than anyone. I'm just saying that I always try and put myself in one's shoes to try and understand what they do. In this instance, I think the lawsuit is a waste of time. But hey...if ole girl wants to do that then its her right. Did she even say what the damages would go toward or is everyone just assuming she's doing it to get rich quick? If I thought I could get money out of it to start a foundation for a positive youth development program for young black girls then I just might sue. At least something good could come out of something so ignorant.

And yes...its give me a f*cking break.


Bryan...and there we agree. You said in your post "they have no right to sue" so thats how I took it. Does she have grounds to sue? I think she does there as well. Its up to a judge to decide whether or not the case has merit. I've seen much more frivilous lawsuits than this end up with the plaintiff coming away with a substantial amount of money. But overall...its a case that if I were a judge I would dismiss because it all comes back to freedom of speech. Whether or not I like what he said...the man has a right to freedom of speech. But again...this incident struck a chord, advertisers started pulling out, and Imus lost his job. So while he has a right to say what he wants, he also must deal with the consequences if he crosses the line. Ultimately though... I shouldn't have to pay you for insulting you. Most of the country wouldn't have even known the faces of those girls had the incident happened. They just would've been another forgotten about group of girls who lost in the final 4. But, what happened happened and once again revealed the true and ugly nature of race relations in this country.

Another thing I'm curious about. Why is it when I state that the lawsuit is a waste of time I'm wrong and getting on a soapbox, but you say it and all is fine?

I'm curious as to where you said the lawsuit was a waste of time. I don't see that in any of your previous comments. And what makes my perspective different from yours is at least trying to understand why the girl did what she did. None of us know the girls so I'm at least trying to keep myself open minded that she has her own reasons for filing a lawsuit. I haven't met the girl so I can't be all harsh and go after the coach, Al Sharpton, or anyone else who rightfully brought this incident to light. Do I see the lawsuit as a waste of time? Yeah I do. If the proceeds however could be used for something good, then I would support it. Thatsw another piece to this whole thing. We are all boo hissing the fact that this girl filed a lawsuit and have NO CLUE what she's going to do with any possible settlement monies. Perhaps we should wait until the whole thing plays out before casting judgment; myself included cuz lawd knows I have jumped the gun far too many times when my ass was totally wrong from jump.

MD- exactly this way- when Rutgers women's basketball is demeaned it's Springer and her program (which the university has a stake in seeing be successful) that take the hit, not the players that were made fun of-she's THE most known person nationwide from that campus, she is Rutgers' women's basketball. It conceivably could be argued that by negatively portraying her program her reputation suffered and consequently her ability to recruit the same quality players and continue the success of the program had been effected. The girl is just wasting her money and I'm sure will come to regret the decision. If anything it will build up the man she's trying to bring down because most will see it as a ridiculous attempt to cash in on the situation.

Good point WChip. I didn't even look at it from the side of the recruiting aspect. thereby harming C. Vivian Stringer's power in recruiting; not that I think the recruiting will suffer. But, I get what you're saying. You're a smart one

That is a good point - though how they were demeaned hasn't in any way been demonstrated. First of all, nappy headed ho has never been declared insult #1...in fact, it doesn't mean much...the only other time I've heard anything like it was in some Whitney Houston song. Ho is slang, used frequently in both humorous and stupid talk, and many rap songs and comedian monologues. The so called insult was nothing more than an old *sshole trying to act young and relevent on the radio waves. He didn't accuse them of being actual prostitutes with overprocessed hair. He's not articulate enough. Imus never said they couldn't play basketball or weren't worthy human beings; he made a really idiotic comment about their appearance, much as TV and radio personalities do every single day. If someone sees that as lawsuit worthy, they have too much time on their hands and not enough fiber in their brain.

To those of you angry at the Rutgers basketball player bringing the lawsuit, what's it to you?

Will you have to pay her attorney's fees & court costs?

Will you have to serve on the jury?

Will you have to hear testimony, hear arguments for & against, deliberate, and render judgment?

It seems to me that unless you have a stake in the lawsuit, or will be directly affected by it, it's ridiculous to get angry over it.

If the lawsuit doesn't have merit, the legal system will take care of it.

To me, a singleton player pursuing a lawsuit in this instance makes no sense. I mean, would not the effect be the entire Rutger's Women's Basketball Team or as someone else mentioned, Vivian Stringer's recruiting potential.

I mean, does this player feel that she was more strongly damaged as a "nappy headed hoe" than the other players? What makes her individually more deserving of puruing litigation? I think a lawsuit as a full representation of the team or the recruiting program of Vivian Stringer would merit a stronger argument and merit in a court of law.

mdt, I didn't use the exact "waste of time" words, but that is what I meant.

Maybe I just don't get the whole thing. If he made a gay joke and used the word "queer" I wouldn't like it. Let's say he said "those queers in Boston" while trying to make a dumb joke, would I like it? No. Am I personally offended enough to say "that damaged me and I'm suing"?

No.

And TEXEX, you're right....nothing is coming out of our pockets so in the big picture it doesn't matter. But I just think it is giving off the scenario of "If someone supposedly gives you an emotional owie (like she is alledging) sue sue SUE!"

Ok you need to post more often. Two thumbs up!!!! Perfect summation of the entire situation, and yes...if it doesn't have merit then it will be thrown out.

Yeah, that's it. If you're not personally affected by it, don't get upset about it? Okay...great. That's the weakest retort/summation of a situation that I've heard in a long time especially on a public forum. I've afraid that attitude doesn't do much for society as a whole...

ANYWAY...so TXEX...I just happened to see how few posts you have contributed since your membership to Outsports, so I guess I shouldn't count on you being another regular in some of our hot topics.

mdterp,

I can assure you that I'm highly opinionated & am always right!



Bryan,

Sorry for the weakest retort/summation of a situation that you've ever heard in a long time.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna get pissed at that guy on the other side of town who just bought an HD DVD player. Doesn't he know that it's too early to get into the HD DVD vs. Blu Ray war? If he had any intelligence, he would let Toshiba & Sony fight it out & wait until one of them emerges victorious before buying a next generation DVD player.

Excuse my sarcasm...

Anyway, from your argument, I now understand the homophobes' arguments of how our relationships & "lifestyles" affect them. That's why they have to pass laws denying US (not them) equal rights & laws protecting US (not them) from discrimination.

Oh, TEX, don't get upset. This doesn't affect you.