Poor, pitiful Kia Vaughn

It's not just "people who thought less of her." She has to prove economic damage.

cost him his job and brought him to national disgrace

Maybe the latter is true, but with the Imus recent settlement with CBS talk of his getting a new show in the fall I'm not sure he's suffered financially!

Look I don't think she should win in this law suit.

But a calling an African-American woman a "nappy-headed ho" is not a minor insult, but a profoundly offensive, hateful term. It's on the same level, if not worse, as Anne Coulter calling John Edwards a faggot.

It wasn't just a stupid thing to say, it was also very, very wrong.

Disclosure: I live in New Brunswick, NJ and am a huge Rutgers sports fan.

A "poor, pitiful ... shameless greedbot"? How different is that, exactly, from NHH, Rod?

Is it possible that advisors around her have less than ideal motives? Certainly. But have you interviewed Coach Stringer? Rev. Soaries? Ms. Vaughn herself to make such sweeping and da*ning conclusions about the character of someone you've presumably never met before? (Kinda like Imus, now that you mention it ...)

BTW, you and Kuo both missed the not-coincidental news that almost certainly precipitated the lawsuit -- the fact that Imus has settled with CBS and is now eagerly negotiating another megabuck contract. To make money on NHH and similar cruelties (e.g., Gwen Ifill the "cleaning lady") ALL OVER AGAIN.

As I said on Kuo's blog, I think a civil trial (even if no damages were awarded, which is obviously your hope) would be a wonderful forum to look at, from a legal point of view -- as opposed to a self-interested media point of view, half of whose leading lights were kissing the I-Man's backside before NHH -- whether Imus' making of millions from routine defamation of people who are not de facto public figures is actionable under libel law.

Who employs the lawyer, Larry? The Great Pumpkin?

Calling her a poor, pitiful shameless greedbot is different from nappy-headed ho because I'm not commenting on her race or her sexual habits, but rather drawing a conclusion from her actions in filing this lawsuit. Maybe I misread you, Larry, but it would seem that you think it is impermissible to ever draw a negative conclusion about Kia Vaughn's character, no matter what the circumstances.

This "wonderful forum" you look forward to is a legal proceeding that costs a lot of people a lot of time and money. And for what? Do you really think that we didn't discuss Imus and his relationship to the national media culture enough the first time?

If you don't like Imus, fine, I'm with you. I've never listened to the guy's show, and he sounds like a jerk. But being a jerk with money shouldn't make you a perpetual target for civil action.

Hmm, I see my comment has been held for moderation. Which is fine. I like moderation, and I believe in it. If my post is judged to be offensive, then it shouldn't be published here. But I wonder how jon's slipped by, since I find his comments to be highly offensive.

The nameless poster just stole my response to Rod :-)

(And no, I'm not saying Kia Vaughn is above criticism -- but the ruthlessness and vindictiveness of it, given that you have never met the woman, was a scary echo of Imus.)

N.B., I've deleted Jon's racist comments. Larry, none of us can be held responsible if something we post brings out bigots of any stripe. It will be a great day when I don't have to monitor the comboxes and delete offensive or obnoxious posts.

Sig, your post was held by the Bnet software because you put a link in it. It apparently got freed up before I even saw it.

Holding people accountable for the damage they cause is a very conservative idea.

It is a bad joke that this is even going to court, that it's going to waste the court's time. The only people who are going to make money off of this are lawyers. We all know that Don Imus ought to be ashamed of himself. Now we can add Kia Vaughn to that number.

My hunch is that the young lady is hoping for settlement. A lawsuit would expose her to discovery and deposition. This means that the defense will seek to know what music she listens to, the sorts of "trash-talking" she may have engaged while playing, and the friends with which she surrounds herself. If in any of these activities she showed a high level of tolerance for offensive or degrading speech, it will be far worse for her public reputation than anything Imus said. On the other hand, if she is squeaky clean, then we may very well see pre-trial processes taking shape with a trial to follow.

Rod,
So you mock someone for saying that maybe the lawyers are the ones pushing this case -- "Who employs the lawyer, Larry? The Great Pumpkin?" Then you have this comment -- "The only people who are going to make money off of this are lawyers."

I'm confused.

Maybe there's a bigger problem here than some junior in college studying for her exams right now. I think you recognize this when ask about our dysfunctional society, but the tone of your post, and its emphasis is all off. Plus, I think you're wrong when you say the lawyers are going to be the only ones making money off this. The more Imus is in the news, the better for him and his sponsors. Plus there's the whole pseudo-news industry that needs a perpetual controversey to keep going. Right now, I'm looking at some ad from newsmax.com that screams -- "Imus Comeback? Vote Now!"

(You probably know this, but this case is probably being handled on a contingency basis -- so there really is no employer/employee relationship in the traditional sense.)

I checked the Rutgers Web site. Kia Vaughn is a rising junior, not senior -- which means she may not even be legally old enough to drink yet.

I'm not saying don't consider her the plaintiff rather than the lawyer. And saying you believe (since you are presumably anti-ATLA) that a lawsuit will "sully her reputation" is a position I disagree with, but it is a reasonable one.

Calling her a "poor, pitiful ... greedbot" (and repeating similar slurs throughout the discussion) when you have never met or interviewed the young woman or anyone around her to form such an opinion based on personal interaction, is not.

Rod, even in my short time on Bnet you have agonized publicly on Crunchy Con about countless occasions in the past when you believe you went too far just to score a cheap political point.

IMHO, this is one of those times.

While it's difficult to imagine that this lawsuit will succeed on merits (how was she tangibly damaged?), I'm afraid I have to agree with Larry Parker. This was an ugly story, and the "greedbot" thing makes it unnecessarily uglier. Kuo's charitable criticism strikes me as the better route.

AJatthebeach:

Somehow, I don't think the WNBA will care too much ...

I guess the story is that you do not believe that slander should be a civil offense in this country any more. If someone were to accuse you of having paid for college by being a rentboy on national airwaves, are you telling me that the thought to sue, even if for like $1 and an apology would never cross your mind?

How is she being thin skinned? This case has nothing at all to do with psychological damages, but an actual act of slander. Rod, do you realize that US courts do not tolerate letting one's rights lapse? For instance, Hormel is suing companies that make Email Spam Blockers, not because they especially think they'll win, but because they need to show that they are vigorously defending their trademark. The same is true for reputation. If she doesn't sue now when someone slanders her as a prostitute for a nationwide audience, then if for example a radio show or website accuses her of being a prostitute of engaging in a weird sex act in the future, the cornerstone of said accuser's defense will be that she did not attempt to defend her reputation in the Imus situation. That is why Tom Cruise sued when a gay porn star accused him of a sexual encounter, i.e., not for the money, but to maintain the legal right to defend himself from future slander. You have no evidence to suggest that Vaughan is in this for the money. I hope that she wins $5 million and gives it to charity to prove you wrong.

Rod, are you then suggesting that no woman in this country should have the right to defend their reputation from those who slander them as prostitutes? Should we rely on honor killings to sort out such episodes instead?

Franklin (and Rod):

Um, according to the Newark Star-Ledger today, Vaughn's lawyer said any and all funds derived in a judgment will go to ... A SCHOLARSHIP FUND AT RUTGERS.

"Greedbot," indeed :-(

Larry: I am always prepared to be proven wrong. I would ask, though (and you may treat this as rhetorical if you wish) whether my expectation of her motives was reasonable. The cynic in me also will await an actual trial, finding for the plaintiff, monetary damages collected, and a scholarship fund created. Until then, it remains nice sounding rhetoric. (I'd like to see said lawyers state publicly that they are representing Vaughan pro bono... but that may be asking too much, eh?)

Kuote:

A man is accused of rape, sentenced to jail in a public maelstrom of righteous anger on behalf of the victim, and spends ten years in jail until it is found that he had nothing to do with the crime. Should he be permitted to sue the rape victim? How about the prosecuters and jury who wrongfully tried and convicted him? I chose that example because, except for the specificity of the ten years part, it has happened many times.

As for examples like Tom Cruise, my response remains the same: if he were such an upstanding citizen to begin with, his simple word denying the allegations would be enough for his adoring public to dismiss the claims. That he needs to sue is indicative of a culture that has always been and remains ready to knee-jerk an assumption of guilt despite the law.

Speaking of which... US jurisprudence is based on fact, not conjecture. That anyone can sue on the basis of a possible injury or loss, and win, is a travesty of justice. I reject it completely. If Cruise were to be denied a part in a movie because of allegations of deviant behavior, then he'd have grounds to sue. (If that were the actual case in his example, then I acknowledge that he is a bad example upon which I should expand; my point remains.)

The law has replaced social ethics. Integrity is now a function of who can hire the best PR. I refuse to respect those who take advantage of that.

This topic has gotten under my skin; I apologize for the multiple posts.

It occurs to me that this lawsuit is very similar to armed robbery. It makes two assumptions:

That Don Imus must be punished.

That the law should support the punishment.

I thought of a comparison that should illustrate my anger over this situation.

Vaughan goes to the school, and asks them to establish a scholarship program to combat the ill effects of racial stereotypes and their societal effects on a category she is free to define as she likes. After the school agrees, she then publicly invites Don Imus to donate his first paycheck to the scholarship fund. End of story, except for the responses.

1a) If the school declines to be a party to the scholarship, what does that say about their support for Vaughan's contention that she has been or will be injured?

1b) If the school agrees:

2a) If Imus agrees to donate, that should be enough to put to rest the whole sorry affair.

2b) If Imus refuses to donate, that puts the last nail in the coffin of his credibility, and the only job he can get is as a shock jock with an audience of people about whom Vaughan has no reason to care.

If Vaughan really cares about this scholarship thing, then her reputation would be secure if she succeeds in creating it, and stands to gain even if she fails. The lawsuit is totally unnecessary.

Larry,

I'm grateful to know of your background. It helps to illuminate your stated positions.

As for the rest... I find the megabuck consequences disgusting, but mostly because my background is in the financial industries. I was a first-hand witness (alas for my mortgage and children's college debt, not a participant) of the leveraged buyouts of the 80s. The current sub-prime shenanigans are not far-reaching enough, in my view.

My perspective is the thousands of jobs lost, the pension funds curtailed, and the tens of thousands of others collaterally affected when divisions were sold off piecemeal and cut apart to pay for the 8-digit rewards of a few insiders. There was fodder for lawsuits, lives damaged in many cases irreparably. All other reasons aside, that is why I can muster only contempt for the Vaughan's of the world when they think that money is the cure to all ills, but especially for their self-centered perceptions of self-worth. I taught my children to build their self-esteem from the inside. I pity Vaughan for being unable to do that, and I refuse to tolerate the alternatives she pursues. She may be the present target of my ire, but she certainly is not the only one who deserves it.

BTW, I'm betting Imus' parting gift was contractual; he would have received it for any for-cause dismissal short of a criminal conviction. I understand the sentiment; I also find any surprise over it beneath my notice, considering the multi-megabuck severances CEOs of bankrupt corporations get any more.

Well, as often happens when using argument by analogy, the respondent gets caught up in the details and misses the point. That's not a dig at you, Kuote; just a personal reminder to myself to work harder to avoid analogies.

When did Imus use the courts? I'm not aware of his being a plaintiff in the present debacle; if he's used them in the past to attack someone, I'm quite ready to heap scorn on him.

As for the rest of your post: please, by all means hold both sides of the argument. In the meantime, until you find a post I wrote that praises Imus, I request that you avoid putting words in my mouth, as it were.

There is no constitutionally codified right that Vaughan has been denied, nor is there a statute defining any such right in the state of New Jersey. If you would care to reread my posts, you will see my statements about the concept of entitlement and its abuse.

Oh, and why is Vaughan's reputation more worthy of court protection than the many thousands of women who have an equal right to be offended by Imus' insults? The only difference I see is that Vaughan has a celebrity status to bank on, and I fail to find where that endows her with any rights.

Larry,

It becomes an intellectual exercise, one that may take this discussion way off-topic... but your impression of me is correct. Superficially, I'd find a class action even worse.

Litigation can be a valid and important component of social change. The entire cycle of civil rights in the US would have amounted to nothing without it.

So, my challenge to those who support the Vaughan suit is this: what social change is this action supposed to support, and how is one to judge whether such litigation is going to actually be effective?