

Read

Don Imus Lawsuit

Article By Writer Michael Kraft Author: Michael Kraft
Published: August 15, 2007
Check out the free newsletter!
Related: Offbeat Culture Racism

You ever heard of Kia Vaughn?…No?

Well she’s sueing because her image or reputation has been damaged.
What image you ask?…, since her name was never even uttered until the lawsuit?

Well now that’s a good question.

The irony of the Imus lawsuit coming out today doesn’t stop there either.

The Rutgers Player you have never heard of before is sueing for defamation.
That would suggest she had some sort of image that was taken from her?

Or that someone made a comment about her specificaly?

Again, the person you have never heard of, has had her imaged damaged and needs A CASH SETTLEMENT!

The best part is that she is claiming her being called a “ho” on a radio show means she should get cash.

Keep in mind that Imus isn’t a “credible news source”, he is an “entertainer or shockjock”. His show is not about presenting facts its about getting ratings. His comments would have to have some level of believability or specifically target someone, but this seems lacking to me.

I don’t even like Don Imus, but free speech is about unpopular speech.

I stood up for Michael Savage, whom i do like, so I must also stand up for Don Imus….who I don’t like much.

That’s the nature of free speech.

Also, Imus didn’t even mention her name that day, he made A rude joke about the whole team, but Kia Vaughn says she needs to get immediate cash because she had her feelings hurt. An indirect reference to her appearance on TV has caused her millions of dollars in pain.

She says “the word ho means prostitute” in slang, but that is not true. Even if it is true, the recent events will make us take a long look at thse involved and find out what shoe fits or doesn’t.

Prostitute means:
“….anyone selling their services for a cause thought to be unworthy can be described as prostituting themselves.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitute

……but now that she is trying to get cash out of “constitution protected free speech”, so maybe its not such a slander after all?

There is no doubt she used to be the victim here, and the stress is on used to be.

For someone so worried about her “character”, a stupid greedy lawsuit probaly won’t help your status in the public eye. She has moved herself from “victim” to “money chaser”, which doesn’t seem like a step upward in class.

Her attorney says “Vaughn was humiliated, embarrassed and publicly mocked for the comments, the lawsuit claims.”

No lawsuits have been filed against any of the people that supposedly did all mocking this to her since those people don’t have enough money.

He also says “”She would do anything to return to her life as a student”, which her actions of a public frivolous money lawsuit seem to not agree with.

It seems to me that “She would do anything to return to her life as a student… AND GET A NEW CAR AND SOME CASH”, would be a more truthful statement. I actually didn’t even know her name till she stirred up this press on her own.

COLLEEN LONG an Associated Press Writer says:

“Kia Vaughn filed the lawsuit alleging slander and defamation of character in state Supreme Court in the Bronx Tuesday…..Vaughn’s lawsuit, believed to be the first by a player in the case, says Imus and his former co-host Bernard McGuirk, along with CBS Corp. and CBS Radio, are legally responsible for damage done to her character and reputation. There is no dollar amount listed in the suit.

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.”

Imus referred to the basketball players as “nappy-headed hos” on his nationally syndicated radio program in April, becoming the target of heated protests. He was fired shortly after.

‘Ho’ is a slang term for a prostitute. After the comments were made, Vaughn said at a news conference: “Unless they’ve given ‘ho’ a whole new definition, that’s not what I am.”

In light of this recent turn of events, and the definition of a prostitute on Wikipedia is:
“In a more general sense of the word, anyone selling their services for a cause thought to be unworthy can be described as prostituting themselves.”

When you try to exploit money out of a situation like this, I guess the slurs Imus dished out become a real matter of debate.

But if the lawsuit is the first time anyone ever heard of this person by name….and the lawsuit lessened the public opinion of her more than Don Imus ever did? Who is really causing her character damage….Imus or her?

Actually, I may call her lawyer, cause
I want to sue Chris Rock for saying the following on his last HBO special.

“As soon as the white man get out of sight,
he’s like:
”Cracker-ass cracker!
”l’ll put my foot in the crack of your ass,
cracker-ass cracker!
”l wish that cracker would’ve said some shit
to me, saltine-assed, motherfucking cracker!
”Cracker, kiss my ass, you fucking cracker!”

(^ place double-standard here)

I know many people were severely hurt by the words of Chris Rock, A pain that only a lump sum cash payment can cure.

Dom Imus Lawsuit

Kia Vaughn

Rutgers basketball

Kia Vaughn lawsuit

Don Imus

Imus in the morning

IMus lawsuit

5 Responses to “Don Imus Lawsuit”

oh my god on August 23rd, 2007 6:56 pm

the lawsuit is bogus, but this entry was the most ill informed diatribe i’ve ever seen. don’t discuss law if you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Michael Kraft on August 23rd, 2007 8:10 pm

Way to use the comment box to do nothing to enlighten others.

You have the chance to show your knowledge on the subject but dont.
Michael Kraft on August 23rd, 2007 8:14 pm

I would suggest that her lawsuit has brought more negative attention to herself specificaly than anything Imus ever said about the team in general. people opinions of her have greatly gone down since her lawsuit amongst opinions I have heard. She has damaged her own name more than anyone else in the name of seeking money.

This is my personal opinion and doesnt require a law degree to spot BS.

By this definition below, she is far more guilty of the charges upon herself than Imus is, and that is why we agree it is a BS lawsuit.

“In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.

“Defamation” is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between “slander” and “libel”. Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, internet blogging and the like, then it is considered libel.”
oh my god on August 28th, 2007 7:13 pm

well, the entire post was just filled with bullheaded stupidity. where to begin? so i don’t.

either way, this idiot girl has no claim and her lawyer should be sanctioned for filing the lawsuit. if he ends up not being slapped on the wrist, he will be lucky.

imus never made a statement of fact. this isn’t even arguable. he was making an offhanded comment. (it doesn’t matter that he didn’t mention the girl by name, incidentally; a member of a sufficiently small group that third parties would associate the comments with a member of that group are enough. a basketball team is almost a casebook example of this).

end of claim. no statement purporting of “fact” made. done. beyond that, there are first amendment concerns here, as the ball team were limited purpose public figures.

incidentally, her lawyer alleged slander as well as libel, and i believe that in about every jurisdiction, speech on tv/radio is libel due to its “permanent” nature.
Michael Kraft on August 28th, 2007 7:19 pm

Well it sounds like you agreed with what I said, but just said it differently.

She is in it for the money, its a joke of a case and Imus did not try to make a statement of fact.

lastly that she did more damage to herself than he ever did.

Do we disagree on any of this?