LB Storm Klein (Official Thread)

[muffler dragon]

Great point and Storm's father doesn't seem like a guy you want to mess with.

I've seen semblances of the emboldened a couple times. Is there a history that's written somewhere on BP that I can gain an understanding behind the sentiment or is it just hearsay?

 

[stowfan]

Ellis was an alias name for an unnamed source, and is protected by shield laws in Ohio. Even still, the reporter has an obligation to reasonably thoroughly investigate such a claim, leaving ultimate liability on the news organization (and they have deeper pockets than "Ellis" I am sure).

The damages incurred is the most interesting aspect to me...not really sure he could claim damages yet. A harm to reputation could happen down the road that causes damages, but I could see "token" or punitive damages for the time being. Could he prove that being named somehow lost him friendships to get actual damages? Relationships? A summer job opportunity? He may be able to conjure up some claim to damages.

No doubt in my mind that SI at least showed simple negligence (as said before, Klein will be a private person, so that is all he really should need), and quite possibly a reckless disregard for the truth. Correct me if I am wrong, it is late and I ain't a lawyer yet

Where is that worthless, no good, stinking, miserable Gator, when you need him?

 

[CHU]

Can Storm Klein, at the worst, get a correction by the outlet (and the other outlets that went off of SI)?

I'm honestly thinking that's all he (and John Simon) will get, unless this article heavily damages their draft position (hard to prove too). I'm not an attorney and have no clue.

I mean, Joe Schad said and printed that Tyler Moeller got into a brawl in a Cincinnati bar...and never said he was wrong. So a correction for Storm and Simon may be asking a lot.

 

[BasketballBuck0]

Can Storm Klein, at the worst, get a correction by the outlet (and the other outlets that went off of SI)?

I'm honestly thinking that's all he (and John Simon) will get, unless this article heavily damages their draft position (hard to prove too). I'm not an attorney and have no clue.

I mean, Joe Schad said and printed that Tyler Moeller got into a brawl in a Cincinnati bar...and never said he was wrong. So a correction for Storm and Simon may be asking a lot.

This is what goes on inside Joe Schad's mind when he thinks he is writing correct information.
(no politics outside of the poli-forum, please)

 

[Dryden]

The first thing I thought when I read the SI article was what would you do if you were one of the suspended players and you knew you were innocent. If Storm Klein has been wrongly accused, I hope he and his father throw the book at SI. Best of luck.

Klein's name appearing in the SI article blindsided me. This kid is the pride of LV and talked about how he considered himself a role-model for the next group of young kids. He finished HS early so he could enroll at OSU for spring practice, and when he finally arrived he took the locker next to Laurinaitis. Storm is old school and grew up dreaming about being a Buckeye. Every report I've ever read about him gives me the impression that he's a kid, like Spielman, that would rather sit in a dorm room watching film for 16 hours on his off day than going to a tattoo parlor to play PlayStation and smoke pot.

Not saying Klein wouldn't (or didn't) go to Fine Line Ink in the course of accompanying another player, but there is no way in hell he'd go there himself to actively participate. There are 84 other scholarship players on the team that I can't comment on. But Storm? No. Way.

 

[sepia5]

I would respectfully beg to differ. Tressel may be construed as a "public" figure and might have a heightened standard to meet, but I don't know why Klein as a student would be considered anything other than a "private" individual. I don't know Ohio laws well, but defamation is a claim that would fly in many other states if a the challenged statement either is a fact or implies an assertion of fact. Basically have to prove the statement was false and that he has suffered damage as a result.

I believe there is case law coming out both way on this issue. There's a case I recall reading about University of Maryland basketball players that sued a newspaper for invasion of privacy or defamation under state law. They were deemed public figures by virtue of their membership on a high-profile sports team at a major university.

Here's the cite: 406 A.2d 652 (the case is called Bliney v. Evening Star Newspaper Co.)

Money quote, at page 660: "Appellants achieved the status of public figures solely by virtue of their membership on the University basketball team. Their possible exclusion from the team whether for academic or any other reason was therefore a matter of legitimate public interest. Had they quit the team or withdrawn from the University, the public would be entitled to ask and to speculate as to the reasons for such action. That the threat of exclusion was academically based does not lessen the legitimacy of the public interest. Appellants were not in the same posture as other students, whose scholastic standing, in its entirety, was purely of private concern; when their standing reached the point of affecting their eligibility to play basketball for the University, the privacy of that status became somewhat attenuated. Publication of that eligibility-threatening status was not unreasonable and did not trample upon community mores. Having sought and basked in the limelight, by virtue of their membership on the team, appellants will not be heard to complain when the light focuses on their potentially imminent withdrawal from the team. We thus concur with the circuit court that, upon the undisputed evidence in this case, the publications in question did not constitute a tortious invasion of privacy."

That's not to say that every court would come out this way, but there are very good arguments to be made that an Ohio State linebacker is a public figure.

 

[OH10]

That's not to say that every court would come out this way, but there are very good arguments to be made that an Ohio State linebacker is a public figure.

Not sure an Ohio court would come out the same way. I find it ironic that college athletes are required to be amatuers in terms of financial compensation but are public figures for purposes of a defamation suit. Basically, they'd be getting it shoved in every hole and they wouldn't even get dinner first.

 

[Taosman]

Just the fact of another voice out there saying the SI article was wrong is a win for the good guys. Perception is everything now. It's a trial in the media and national perception. Don't think that the NCAA isn't paying attention to things said in the media right now. How can they not be prejudiced by what they see in print? The good people have to speak up.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke​

 

[Tlangs]

Just the fact of another voice out there saying the SI article was wrong is a win for the good guys. Perception is everything now. It's a trial in the media and national perception. Don't think that the NCAA isn't paying attention to things said in the media right now. How can they not be prejudiced by what they see in print? The good people have to speak up.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke​

"Evil will always prevail because good is dumb" - Dark Helmet

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

That's not to say that every court would come out this way, but there are very good arguments to be made that an Ohio State linebacker is a public figure.

There is a huge difference between whether or not a student athlete's withdrawl from a team is public information and whether or not a media giant can blatantly print inaccurate information on a student athlete just because he/she is deemed a public figure.

 

[sepia5]

There is a huge difference between whether or not a student athlete's withdrawl from a team is public information and whether or not a media giant can blatantly print inaccurate information on a student athlete just because he/she is deemed a public figure.

You can be a general-purpose public figure or you can be a public figure for a limited purpose. A general-purpose public figure is basically one that is sufficiently well-known such that all news about him or her is of public importance, meaning regardless of the substance of the information reported, actual malice will need to be proven. Those that are public figures for a limited purpose are generally those that are not so well known to rise to the level of general-purpose public figure, but who have nevertheless injected themselves into a particular controversy that is of public importance. If the information reported relates to their role in the matter of public controversy, they'll have to prove actual malice. If not, then you're basically looking at proving negligence.

It's a bit more complicated than that, particularly at the damages phase, but my point is that, as I read the decision of the Maryland Appellate Court I cited to above, the basketball players were deemed general-purpose public figures. Hence, the subject matter of the information reported would be irrelevant; actual malice would necessarily need to be proven to prevail.

 

[sepia5]

Not sure an Ohio court would come out the same way. I find it ironic that college athletes are required to be amatuers in terms of financial compensation but are public figures for purposes of a defamation suit. Basically, they'd be getting it shoved in every hole and they wouldn't even get dinner first.

Kind of illustrates the outdated, head-in-the-sand nature of the NCAA's concept of the "amateur" student athlete, doesn't it?

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

You can be a general-purpose public figure or you can be a public figure for a limited purpose. A general-purpose public figure is basically one that is sufficiently well-known such that all news about him or her is of public importance, meaning regardless of the substance of the information reported, actual malice will need to be proven. Those that are public figures for a limited purpose are generally those that are not so well known to rise to the level of general-purpose public figure, but who have nevertheless injected themselves into a particular controversy that is of public importance. If the information reported relates to their role in the matter of public controversy, they'll have to prove actual malice. If not, then you're basically looking at proving negligence.

I don't care of you're the POTUS, the media can't print out-and-out lies about you without repercussions...

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You can be a general-purpose public figure or you can be a public figure for a limited purpose. A general-purpose public figure is basically one that is sufficiently well-known such that all news about him or her is of public importance, meaning regardless of the substance of the information reported, actual malice will need to be proven. Those that are public figures for a limited purpose are generally those that are not so well known to rise to the level of general-purpose public figure, but who have nevertheless injected themselves into a particular controversy that is of public importance. If the information reported relates to their role in the matter of public controversy, they'll have to prove actual malice. If not, then you're basically looking at proving negligence.

It's a bit more complicated than that, particularly at the damages phase, but my point is that, as I read the decision of the Maryland Appellate Court I cited to above, the basketball players were deemed general-purpose public figures. Hence, the subject matter of the information reported would be irrelevant; actual malice would necessarily need to be proven to prevail.

Too broad a holding then. Basketball players are subject to a certain degree of scrutiny, but... how much really? (Any sport applies, of course, including football) Do I, as a member of the general public to which this information, malicious or not, is going out have a right to know what his brother's kids second born is named because he plays basketball on TV... or football? For a scholarship?

My example is a parade of horribles and not in line with the facts of the case, but I think you see my point. There have got to be more limited contours to athletes exposure by the press than, with say, our elected officials.

 

[Buckeye86]

I don't care of you're the POTUS, the media can't print out-and-out lies about you without repercussions...

Have you been in the check-out aisle of your local grocery store recently?