Drew Sharp and Slander against Demar Dorsey?
Attention MGoLegal Department, now is your time to shine. Has Drew Sharp committed slander (here: http://bit.ly/dhLJ9Z) against Demar Dorsey?
My bet is that we won't be seeing Mr. Sharp writing a column about this subject any time soon.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:08 AM ^
Yeah, considering that I've commented in that thread, I'm pretty well aware that it's there. I was hoping to take the general conversation away from the general "Drew Sharp can suck a big one" to "did Drew Sharp finally step in it big time". Thus, the different thread.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:09 AM ^
I think he knows already
February 4th, 2010 at 1:13 AM ^
Wouldn't that be slander?
February 4th, 2010 at 1:17 AM ^
Yeah, you're right. I'm way too tired. Fixed. +1 for you sir.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:37 AM ^
raise this issue. If it wasn't Sharp, it would be Rosenberg. If it wasn't Rosenberg, it would be Snyder. Or Albom. Or Birkett. If Carty was still at the defunct AA News, he would have done it. That was my concern about extending a scholarship offer to Dorsey—RR is going to be asked a thousand mind-numbingly repetitive and stupid questions about why he recruits kids who get arrested, and unfortunately it only reinforces the existing idea in many people's head that RR runs a shady program. The fact that RR does not won't change the concrete-like mindset of people like Sharp, and since he has a forum that reaches hundreds of thousands of people, that doesn't do RR any good.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:51 AM ^
Telling people someone is guilty of a crime when you have no idea of whether or not he is is just despicable
February 4th, 2010 at 2:21 AM ^
Is he really suggesting this Dorsey kid was getting acquitted because he was some 16 year old super recruit? Seriously?
I've been following recruiting about as any other creepy dude - and I didn't even know super recruits like Ronald Powell or Seantreal Henderson existed when they were 16. He's suggesting Dorsey somehow got off because of his 'fame?'
I'm not going any further. There is definitely some slander in the words he spewed. I will not say anymore about this guy.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:50 AM ^
Look how easily Plaxico Burress and Gilbert Arenas. Look at Randy Moss during high school. He was convicted of a crime, and all that happened was that he was kicked out of Florida State. And for those that don't know, Randy Moss was a god even back then. So yeah, looks like he receieved preferential treatment.
*sarcasm*
February 4th, 2010 at 2:22 AM ^
I can't believe I am saying this, but I actually loathe Drew Sharp more now. I did not even think that was possible.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:48 AM ^
Before, he was just a biased journalist who clearly did not like Rich Rod. Fine.
Now, he is accusing a teenager of crimes he didn't commit, denigrating his character, making him the poster child for recruits with egos (Yo, Drew just because they're talented at something unlike yourself doesn't mean they're egotistical) without ANY PROOF
I always thought Drew Sharp was a bad journalist. But this makes me think he's a bad person
February 4th, 2010 at 3:28 AM ^
Nolo's Legal dictionary defines slander as "An untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience. Libel is an untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Libel is a tort (a type of civil wrong), and the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement."
So that case could definitely be made given that he claimed that Dorsey has character problems, and that he likely has committed other crimes, not only that but he also suggested that Dorsey was only acquitted because he is a high profile high school athlete
February 4th, 2010 at 4:12 AM ^
He claimed factually simply that Dorsey had been arrested twice which appears to be true. The rest of it is clearly him stating his opinion that this implies that kid will get in more trouble. Sharp didn't imply that he had any inside information that Dorsey had actually done any wrongdoing or had done anything else. Bottom line is he stated the basis of his claim drew his conclusions.
The problem is that it's ridiculous. Depending on where you are ... and to quote Sharp "let's not be naive..." what race you are, it can be easier or harder to be arrested. Additionally, the bar for being arrested is quite low. Arrests that are based on a less than even chance of criminal activity are constitutional.
Sharp is essentially saying that the kid should be some kind of untouchable based on these arrests even though he might have done nothing at all. That's insane. The sad thing is that there are innocent people out there with arrest records who can't get jobs precisely because of this kind of logic.
February 4th, 2010 at 4:25 AM ^
Yep, and the problem is that lots of people agree with this opinion. Does Drew Sharp think Mike Vick should be playing pro football?—not that it's even comparable really because Vick wasn't acquitted.
Dorsey went to a jury trial which totally renders useless his claim the kid was "let off" by awestruck law enforcers. The jury was awed by his ability to cover the field? I don't think so. The kid wears grills. That probably doesn't help you during the legal process. The fact that he was acquitted and is a young black man in America means that he probably truly was innocent.
As Drew Sharp said, though, he's through with second chances. That's when I knew he stopped taking himself seriously, too.
February 4th, 2010 at 5:16 AM ^
Yeah, that Dorsey kid really fucked up by divorcing his past and accepting a full ride to one of the best universities in the world.
What irks me the most is that Sharp couldn't give two shits about Dorsey. He's using him as pawn for his agenda. If Dorsey went elsewhere, Sharp would instead ask RR questions about Kinard's unMichigan-like grades, or Ricardo's "convenient" move to Ann Arbor, or Jeremy Jackson's nepotic scholarship, or who knows what.
I'm sure the Tallahassee and L.A. papers are running stories this morning about how the hometown teams dodged a bullet when that ten-time felon serendipitously ended up in Ann Arbor. Or Not.
I hate that guy.
February 4th, 2010 at 6:08 AM ^
Mr. Sharp...
Are you high or just incredibly stupid?
I assure you, I am NOT high.
-courtesy of South Park
February 4th, 2010 at 6:31 AM ^
Ned Slanders!
February 4th, 2010 at 7:06 AM ^
It's poor form and it wasn't the forum for that kind of question. It's a signing day announcement and RR should not have taken any questions. Especially from the Freep.
It's like going to a guys wedding and asking the fiance if she knows about the sluts he banged in college during the vows. Poor form, Drew.
February 4th, 2010 at 7:27 AM ^
I don't get it. Why doesn't the athletic department just start not inviting these guys to pressers, not sending them releases, not providing interview time for the students with them, and reward the groups that follow good journalistic practices by distributing the budget and time towards resources and interview time for them?
I know because it is a public university, you can't just lock them out, but at the very least you can claim they no longer have any claim to being a reputable sources of information.
February 4th, 2010 at 7:36 AM ^
when pressed, why couldn't RR just say something like, "I answered your question, let's move on. Next!"?
February 4th, 2010 at 8:32 AM ^
he did say that...i think twice.
February 4th, 2010 at 7:31 AM ^
read the freep again. That is the only thing that will help.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:31 AM ^
wow. i tried to listen to that whole thing but only could make it to where he started to read the letter.
2 things I took from him:
1. If you're accused of a crime, you're guilty. (makes me hope he's in the wrong place/wrong time so he can see what it's like)
2. fans are stupid
wow...wow.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:36 AM ^
This is not libel. Actually not even close. Dorsey is a public figure, so Sharp would have to know that he is saying false things about Dorsey. Not even negligence would be sufficient to demonstrate libel in this scenario. Moreover, he phrases his words pretty carefully by only speculating that he was let off because he was an athlete. Moreover, his point that you can be acquitted but still be guilty is valid. Just because the prosecution can't show you did it beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean you didn't do it. What bothers me about the piece is that he could have done some research to determine whether some of the general assertions he made (athletes get off easy; an acquittal does not mean innocence) applied in this circumstance.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:47 AM ^
You'd have a heck of a time proving that a high school kid who plays football well enough to be recruited for a scholarship has intentionally made himself a public figure.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^
im trying to remember from my law school days (aka the present) but ny times v. sullivan handles slanderous libel. the court in that case held there needs to be actual malice for people as public figures. gertz, if i recall, has a lower standard for slander against private figures (negligence, i believe?)
either way, it would be a hard argument to make that demar dorsey is a public figure, and would therefore have to prove the actual malice standard. it seems to me you need to not only be public (and is a high school recruit public?) but you also need to be in a position to make policy, which clearly dorsey cannot.
but like i said, im no expert on the matter.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:34 AM ^
"Dorsey is a public figure, so Sharp would have to know that he is saying false things about Dorsey."
It's knowledge of falsity OR reckless disregard for the truth, isn't it? That's my problem with these statements like Sharp made. He made them with zero regard for whether they were true or not.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:45 AM ^
I'm sure he's been following the Demar Dorsey case from day one.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:02 PM ^
How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of Drew after all he has been through!
He lost his mind, he doesn't even know what he's saying. He has no fuckin' filter for what comes out of his mouth!
His boss turned out to be a user, a cheater, and now he's going through a slanderous campaign against a 17 YEAR OLD. All you people care about is... standing up for a teenager who Sharp is using for his own "career" advancement.
HE’S A HUMAN! What you don’t realize is that Drew is making the Free Press all this money and all he does is exploit his biases and talk/write a bunch of crap with no actual facts to back it up.
He hasn’t performed a decent show in years. His columns are crap and in the Free Press for a reason because all you people (their readers) want is CRAP! CRAP-CRAP, CRAP: CRAP!
LEAVE HIM ALONE! You are lucky he even does a show for you BASTARDS!
LEAVE DREW ALONE!...Please.
Brian Cook talked about professionalism and said if Drew was a professional he would’ve pulled it off no matter what.
Speaking of professionalism, when is it professional to publicly bash someone who is going through a hard time.
Leave Drew Alone Please...!
Leave Drew Sharp alone! ... right now! ... I mean it!
Anyone that has a problem with him you deal with me, because him is not well right now.
LEAVE HIM ALONE!
(edit: typo)
(edit: typo)February 4th, 2010 at 8:47 AM ^
He sounds jealous that he wasn't ever an athletic sports star. Seems more like a personal issue to me.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:43 AM ^
If you read some of the other comments like that he's made about athletes (google: drew sharp + michael vick + cnn) and then take a look at his freep.com profile, that is definitely the right conclusion to reach.
http://www.freep.com/article/99999999/COL08/90731064/1089/About-Drew-Sh…
February 4th, 2010 at 8:50 AM ^
Interesting note on all of this: A coworker of mine who's a big Detroit sports media fan told me this morning he took 97.1 off of his tuner in his car, because they were being so idiotic and vindictive and NOT journalistic on The Ticket.
I told him read the Detroit News and listen to podcasts.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^
"Until you get your heads out of your back pockets and look at EVERYTHING. Don't stand up there and pass judgement on the media on stuff like this because you make yourself look like an ass... This is why the newspapers are dying, because, if you actually read the newspapers instead of getting your information out of little bloggers, maybe you would get a little more depth of whats going on, not just on stupid stuff like sports, but the rest of the world." ~Drew Sharp
So says a man who is basing his entire judgement of a kid and a coach off the facts that a 16 year old was charged and acquitted on felony charges as he correlates this with him being an athlete.
Maybe he should perhaps get his head out of his back pocket and look at EVERYTHING before he makes himself look like an ass. Too late.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:07 AM ^
One thing missing in all of this and something that stuck out to me was Drew's comment about how Feagin had a history of dealing cocaine in Floriday. Did I miss something? If I remember correctly didn't Feagin's high school coach come out and say the kid had a clean record and that RR did his homework. If the kid had a "history of dealing cocaine", don't you think there would be a record of this?
Another thing I took from that whole rant was how sorry I suddenly felt for Demar. This is probably one of the happiest days in his life and some asshole has to ruin it by saying a bunch of terrible things about him on the radio. It also got me thinking about some stupid shit I did when I was a teenager. Kids make mistakes, it happens.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
(And while I'm not in the MGoLegal Dept., I am in the MGoJournalist wing so I know a bit about this)
Slander and libel charges have a few hurdles to clear if they are to stick. Also, keep in mind that the burden is on the plaintiff- in my opinion one of the perks of living in a society that protects free speech. Anyway, the hurdles are (roughly) as follows:
1. The statement was made (check)
2. The statement was phrased as a fact rather than opinion (ehhh, this is where Drew Sharp would probably hide)
3. The statement is false (check)
4. The statement is about the plaintiff (check)
5. The statement was issued/published with requisite degree of fault (again, probably check, even if spouted from off the cuff)
The problem is this: Drew Sharp is an opinion sports journalist for the Freep. Most every comment he makes he can claim as an opinion statement rather than a reporting statement. If a court found this to be the case (and let's face it, they would), there's really no slander charge to be found.
Slander and libel are really thrown around way too liberally for what our justice system and Constitution provide. Love it or hate it, our governmental policy is designed to protect citizens from willfully malicious communications that harm their ways of life. It doesn't protect us from sniveling assholes who think their only way to protect their dying industry is through controversy and pandering (all the while killing the medium for fellow journalists *coughcoughcough*) making opinionated and cheap comments.
As an aside, I find Sharp's comments even more offensive in the light of the justice system (as opposed to football recruits/sports in general). This is a man who is deliberately ignoring the woeful history of our country's criminal system (especially in relation to minorities) to make a silly and unentertaining talking point. I'm sure at some point in the future there will be a sports-and-justice issue where he is on the other side, and he will take the opportunity to then wield the race stick to berate all who disagree and claim a bereaved status to draw sympathy. I'm sorry Drew: when you say the things you've said in the past few days, you've cast your lot, and it's not with those of us who presume innocence before guilt.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:14 PM ^
This is excellent.
February 4th, 2010 at 2:46 PM ^
This is an excellent summary. Thanks for posting that. Just to be clear, I'm definitely aware of what the terms actually mean and what is required for them; I was specifically asking the question from a "what the law is" perspective, rather than the "what most people think the law is" perspective. I would agree that he's likely to hide behind the "opinion" element, but given what he actually said and the way that he said it it's possible that he could have trouble with that. That's basically what I was curious about. It may not have been intentionally malicious (or was it?), but given what he said in the light of the actual facts that are available publicly it would seem that an argument could be made that his comments were made in reckless disregard for the truth. Either way, it's the type of case that, just for once, I'd love to see someone pursue; it's one of the few checks that our legal system provides to ensure that free speech is used responsibly from the media platform.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^
Google Drew Sharp and you get:
freep.com | Drew Sharp | Detroit Free Press
Drew Sharp (drewsharp) on Twitter
News results for drew sharp
Image results for drew sharp
Video results for drew sharp
Drew Sharp and Slander against Demar Dorsey? | mgoblog