[fullmetal]

1. I think TT had to sue ESPN and not Stanford because discovery could have gotten ugly.
2. I feel like ESPN's lawyers had to have gone over this story carefully before publication, no?  If only to head off lawsuits like this?


3. Re: malicious intent--

Because Taylor is a public figure, his defamation lawsuit must meet the so-called “actual malice” standard in order to succeed in court. This means proving that ESPN not only reported untrue information but did so either knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Taylor’s lawsuit alleges this standard is met because, his attorneys wrote, Thai, the reporter, did not reach out to Taylor for comment until the same day the initial article was published.

It does seem problematic that a reporter wouldn't make a good faith effort to get both sides of a story.  But maybe Thai did reach out much earlier and TT ignored it.

4. Of course, I'm sure the goal here is for a juicy out-of-court settlement, but if that happens, will the court of public opinion decide that TT will have had performed righteous indignation sufficiently to seem innocent?

[fullmetal]

1. I think TT had to sue ESPN and not Stanford because discovery could have gotten ugly.
2. I feel like ESPN's lawyers had to have gone over this story carefully before publication, no?  If only to head off lawsuits like this?


3. Re: malicious intent--

Because Taylor is a public figure, his defamation lawsuit must meet the so-called “actual malice” standard in order to succeed in court. This means proving that ESPN not only reported untrue information but did so either knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Taylor’s lawsuit alleges this standard is met because, his attorneys wrote, Thai, the reporter, did not reach out to Taylor for comment until the same day the initial article was published.

It does seem problematic that a reporter wouldn't make a good faith effort to get both sides of a story.  But maybe Thai did reach out much earlier and TT ignored it.

4. Of course, I'm sure the goal here is for a juicy out-of-court settlement, but if that happens, will the court of public opinion decide that TT will have had performed righteous indignation sufficiently to seem innocent?