Trevor Bauer discussion thread

[connorp]

I’d like to know what was said

 

Just typical Jim baiting lol

[AdamGreenwood]

Good for Bauer. I hope he does some serious damage to Molly and Rosenthal. This is malicious.

And the way he has been treated is absurd. There's plenty of players who hit women who didn't get asked to be hit, that received lighter sentences than his limbo.

 

Aroldis Chapman got a 30-game suspension for choking and shoving his gf against a wall, as well as threatening her with a gun, when he fired off 8 rounds.

This is a ******** charge.

[Deadpool]

Interesting suit. He doesn’t specify damages, just asks for what the court deems appropriate, along with his own legal fees.

 

Im no lawyer, but he hasn’t actually suffered any monetary damages yet, just reputation. How does a jury determine what his reputation damage is worth if he hasn’t suffered any actual monetary damages?

 

There's an incredibly high bar to prove defamation for someone in the public eye. Even if it's 100% true that Bauer did nothing wrong, and they just sat there having tea and she made it up out of whole cloth, it's going to be hard as f*** to win that lawsuit. I mean, there would have to be evidence that the reporter absolutely knew it was a lie, and that's tough evidence to produce. This is why TMZ hasn't been sued into the ground.

 

I don't think the damages matter much, like much of Bauer's entire persona, the lawsuit is performative nonsense.

[Dr. Dinger]

Professing your own innocence and then taking up for Deshaun Watson… maybe not such a good look.

[Dick_Pole]

Bauer is the Kaepernick for incels.

[Laika]

Why isn’t he talking on mlb

 

this doesn't mean that he's not

 

if he has any mind to go after MLB I would guess he would assess that claim once his suspension saga is over

[Laika]

Interesting suit. He doesn’t specify damages, just asks for what the court deems appropriate, along with his own legal fees.

 

Im no lawyer, but he hasn’t actually suffered any monetary damages yet, just reputation. How does a jury determine what his reputation damage is worth if he hasn’t suffered any actual monetary damages?

 

If this lawsuit goes to the finish line the effect on Bauer's career will probably be more palpable when it comes time to assess damages because the suit would take years.

[Laika]

There's an incredibly high bar to prove defamation for someone in the public eye. Even if it's 100% true that Bauer did nothing wrong, and they just sat there having tea and she made it up out of whole cloth, it's going to be hard as f*** to win that lawsuit. I mean, there would have to be evidence that the reporter absolutely knew it was a lie, and that's tough evidence to produce. This is why TMZ hasn't been sued into the ground.

 

I don't think the damages matter much, like much of Bauer's entire persona, the lawsuit is performative nonsense.

 

Yeah... I don't do litigation at all so really I have no idea and jimcanuk is probably more expert than I at the subject but Bauer's claim seems pretty flimsy on the whole "actual malice" part. Like, the media for sure reported and spread some information that was not factual but actual malice? Really? I dunno.

 

And the stories being referenced from when Bauer was a free agent are kind of funny because of how TRUE they are in hindsight. Like, Ken reported teams were wary of signing Bauer because he might be a distraction? Well f*** yeah, look what happened lmao. So have fun in court with that argument, Bauer lawyers.

[connorp]

this doesn't mean that he's not

 

if he has any mind to go after MLB I would guess he would assess that claim once his suspension saga is over

 

Sorry. I meant to get back on the field

[L54]

Did anyone read any of the complaint?

 

Molly Knight tweeted knowingly false information when she was in possession of contradictory evidence.

 

Lol

[L54]

Bauer is the Kaepernick for incels.

 

Someone give this man a hug

[Laika]

Did anyone read any of the complaint?

 

Molly Knight tweeted knowingly false information when she was in possession of contradictory evidence.

 

Lol

 

Yeah that's probably the worst part for Molly Knight. The tweets.

[L54]

Yeah that's probably the worst part for Molly Knight. The tweets.

 

I’m not a lawyer but if you’re in possession of evidence that what you’re tweeting is false to 100k + followers in an attempt to harm someone’s reputation I can’t imagine that is no big deal

[connorp]

I’m not a lawyer but if you’re in possession of evidence that what you’re tweeting is false to 100k + followers in an attempt to harm someone’s reputation I can’t imagine that is no big deal

 

Where are guys like King going to get their news breaks now? Nobody wins in this

[AdamGreenwood]

Yeah, posting info about the fractured skull when you know it is false is a legit law suit. Then the claim waters it down though with a bunch of whining about Rosenthal suggesting teams might be wary of Bauer due to his polarizing social media presence. Would have been stronger without it.

[Spanky99]

Bauer is the Kaepernick for incels.

 

lol

[Jimcanuck]

If he wants back to playing baseball, he should just lie low and let this thing die down. MLB doesn't want to be associated with violence to women, alleged or otherwise. It's roughly half it's prospective fan base.

[Laika]

I’m not a lawyer but if you’re in possession of evidence that what you’re tweeting is false to 100k + followers in an attempt to harm someone’s reputation I can’t imagine that is no big deal

 

There are other ways to walk through the situation.

 

"in an attempt to harm someone's reputation" would be subject to heavy debate. what was her actual intent?

 

regarding the evidence - did she just misinterpret the medical evidence and truly believe she was reporting facts? how and why did she misinterpret the evidence? was it confusing, reasonably speaking, or was she negligent or wilfully blind in her review?

 

it's complicated

 

extremely unlikely that she a) knew it was false but tweeted it anyway with the explicit intent to harm Bauer's rep

[L54]

There are other ways to walk through the situation.

 

"in an attempt to harm someone's reputation" would be subject to heavy debate. what was her actual intent?

 

regarding the evidence - did she just misinterpret the medical evidence and truly believe she was reporting facts? how and why did she misinterpret the evidence? was it confusing, reasonably speaking, or was she negligent or wilfully blind in her review?

 

it's complicated

 

extremely unlikely that she a) knew it was false but tweeted it anyway with the explicit intent to harm Bauer's rep

 

Sure all of these possibilities need to be accounted for without any other knowledge. But according to Bauer's complaint The Athletic was in possession of the CT scan results that showed no skull fracture yet Knight still published three tweets that referenced the injury. These tweets have now been deleted which is a huge surprise

 

Willful ignorance isn't the best defense

 

I'm the #1 supporter of holding journalists accountable for failing to report factually. Do the crime you do the time.

[L54]

Yeah, posting info about the fractured skull when you know it is false is a legit law suit. Then the claim waters it down though with a bunch of whining about Rosenthal suggesting teams might be wary of Bauer due to his polarizing social media presence. Would have been stronger without it.

 

Agreed. Rosenthal can write about whatever he wants just like any other journalist can as long as it's factual.

 

I don't think his article was influencing any front office's decision.

[Deadpool]

Sure all of these possibilities need to be accounted for without any other knowledge. But according to Bauer's complaint The Athletic was in possession of the CT scan results that showed no skull fracture yet Knight still published three tweets that referenced the injury.

 

This is really easy to say, it's a hell of a lot harder to prove in court. These kinds of suits rarely succeed and are mostly nuisances (Bauer has nothing but money and time right now, and if nothing else he loves trolling people.)

[Laika]

In Knight's defense:

 

a) the complainant's submissions said she had a skull fracture

Molly Knight is not a medical professional who can read CT scan results

 

^ this is what her lawyers may say

 

"willful ignorance" would generally speaking actually be an argument used by Bauer's camp. They would say something like "it is no defense that you did not know; it is your job to know. The mere fact that you did not know comes from wilfully failing to meet your journalistic responsibilities because you wanted, so madly, to defame Mr. Bauer"

[L54]

This is really easy to say, it's a hell of a lot harder to prove in court. These kinds of suits rarely succeed and are mostly nuisances (Bauer has nothing but money and time right now, and if nothing else he loves trolling people.)

 

How hard is it to prove a CT scan revealed no fracture?

[Deadpool]

How hard is it to prove a CT scan revealed no fracture?

 

That's not relevant at all. What's relevant is proving that the reporter knew that. As Laika pointed out, "the reporter is not a medical professional and has no experience reading CT scan results" is the slam dunk defence here.

[L54]

That's not relevant at all. What's relevant is proving that the reporter knew that. As Laika pointed out, "the reporter is not a medical professional and has no experience reading CT scan results" is the slam dunk defence here.

 

Lmao of course it's relevant

 

Do you think The Athletic had her medical records with no understanding of what they meant or said? Of course not.

 

Sorry but saying I'm not a doctor so I plead the fifth isn't a slam dunk defense

[Deadpool]

Lmao of course it's relevant

 

Do you think The Athletic had her medical records with no understanding of what they meant or said? Of course not.

 

Sorry but saying I'm not a doctor so I plead the fifth isn't a slam dunk defense

 

I don't even think you're getting the basics of this. It's not "pleading the fifth", or anything remotely like that.

 

There's a very high evidentiary bar for defamation lawsuits filed by public figures, and proving that someone was lying is difficult. "I'm too stupid to understand that; it wasn't a lie, it was my own incompetence" is a perfectly valid defence in cases like this. Barring some Emails where the reporter said something to the effect of "I know this isn't true, but I'm going to tweet it anyway" (which could exist, I guess), it's next to impossible to show that they KNEW they were lying.

[Laika]

That's not relevant at all. What's relevant is proving that the reporter knew that. As Laika pointed out, "the reporter is not a medical professional and has no experience reading CT scan results" is the slam dunk defence here.

 

I didn't not say that exactly. I am just saying what her lawyers will probably say.

 

But whether she had a skull fracture is very relevant because that is the untruth. The lie. The misrepresentation.

 

The important questions are things like:

- what exactly did the evidence say and how was it displayed

 

If page 1 of the dossier is a CT scan that says in bold "no evidence of any skull fractures" then Molly Knight might be in trouble.

 

If page 169 of the dossier has a very tiny print, bad scan, of a handwritten interpretation of a CT scan that says "some evidence of possible basal skull fr. but further examination leads me to not diagnose same" then maybe she is fine.

[Laika]

I don't even think you're getting the basics of this. It's not "pleading the fifth", or anything remotely like that.

 

There's a very high evidentiary bar for defamation lawsuits filed by public figures, and proving that someone was lying is difficult. "I'm too stupid to understand that; it wasn't a lie, it was my own incompetence" is a perfectly valid defence in cases like this. Barring some Emails where the reporter said something to the effect of "I know this isn't true, but I'm going to tweet it anyway" (which could exist, I guess), it's next to impossible to show that they KNEW they were lying.

 

I don't think molly knight needs to KNOW it is not true. But she has to be guilty of some fault similar to negligence. So it might actually be enough to prove that she SHOULD HAVE KNOWN given her profession and what the medical evidence actually shows.

 

Google says defamation in the USA has four components

 

1. false statement

2. which is communicated

3. by someone guilty of a fault amounting to at least negligence

4. damages

 

From good old Wiki:

 

In United States v. Jewell, the court held that proof of willful ignorance satisfied the requirement of knowledge as to criminal possession and importation of drugs.

[Jimcanuck]

Meh, as someone mentioned, what is the damage? Even if the court finds malice, what is the damage from a few tweets? If the tweets were not sent, Bauer would be in the exact same position.

[Deadpool]

I don't think molly knight needs to KNOW it is not true. But she has to be guilty of some fault similar to negligence. So it might actually be enough to prove that she SHOULD HAVE KNOWN given her profession and what the medical evidence actually shows.

 

Google says defamation in the USA has four components

 

1. false statement

2. which is communicated

3. by someone guilty of a fault amounting to at least negligence

4. damages

 

IANAL, so I will defer to you on this, I simply note that these sorts of suits by public figures are rarely successful because it is such a high bar.

 

Cursory googling found me this, which seems to mostly be "The Daily Mail sucks so f***ing hard", and that these successes are oftentimes years apart.