Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="OrangeHeel, post: 79726, member: 152"] I'm thinking Schwartz wasn't a beacon of journalistic integrity, but I'm also thinking BF qualifies as a "public figure" under the ridiculously high standard for libel/slander suits under the first amendment even if the allegations prove false. While I wouldn't be thrilled if I was an ESPN attorney, I bet they're not losing any sleep. Having said that, if I was them I would be interested in knowing what really changed from 2003. I'm guessing step-brother dearest was one of the corroboraters from 2003 who when contacted denied. Adding to my interest is my opinion that neither accuser was, shall we say, at their best on tv. So, even if they're not losing sleep, they'll have a busy few days at the office particularly if SPD shakes either accuser off their story. (Police are generally excellent at smelling a rat and getting a false accuser to confess if that is the case here.) [/QUOTE]