ICbornNraised
Well-Known Member
In no way am i a "wannabe" lawyer, and I have never seen "a few good men". I did take Intro to Law, and the bolded above is day 1. It doesn't change my opinion.
Coker....legal
- Thread starter HawkForce
- Start date
- Status
In no way am i a "wannabe" lawyer, and I have never seen "a few good men". I did take Intro to Law, and the bolded above is day 1. It doesn't change my opinion.
BlackHawk
Well-Known Member
Setting aside the fact that this discussion is moot because Jon is not going to change his mind on this because legal reasons do not seem to be his only justification for his position, I will just say this: It costs a lot of money to defend a law suit, even if you are 100% right.
you got your knowledge of the law from a few good men, maybe these guys watch a lot of law and order. unless you're a lawyer you just made yourself look like a fool
H8IAST8
Well-Known Member
But did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express?
Montanahawk
Well-Known Member
Some verification that it's a legal issue.
Coker Suspended For Insight Bowl Due To Apparent Legal Issue - KCJJ-AM
Coker Suspended for Insight Bowl Due to Apparent Legal Issue
AP/Lang
12-21-11
Iowa running back Marcus Coker has been suspended from the Dec. 30 Insight Bowl against Oklahoma…and multiple sources have told KCJJ that the suspension involves a legal investigation.
The university announced the suspension Tuesday without providing details, only saying that Coker violated the university's student-athlete code of conduct.
One law enforcement agent told KCJJ that the issue is legal in nature, while another said that their superiors have been “unusually tight-lipped†about the situation.
Coker, who is a sophomore from Beltsville, Md., will not travel with the team to Tempe, Ariz., for the game between the Hawkeyes (7-5) and the Sooners (9-3).
Coker's rushing total of 1,384 yards this season ranked fourth in school history. He was also the offensive player of the game in last season's Insight Bowl, when he set Iowa bowl records for rushing attempts (33) and rushing yards (219) in the 27-24 win over Missouri.
Coker Suspended For Insight Bowl Due To Apparent Legal Issue - KCJJ-AM
Coker Suspended for Insight Bowl Due to Apparent Legal Issue
AP/Lang
12-21-11
Iowa running back Marcus Coker has been suspended from the Dec. 30 Insight Bowl against Oklahoma…and multiple sources have told KCJJ that the suspension involves a legal investigation.
The university announced the suspension Tuesday without providing details, only saying that Coker violated the university's student-athlete code of conduct.
One law enforcement agent told KCJJ that the issue is legal in nature, while another said that their superiors have been “unusually tight-lipped†about the situation.
Coker, who is a sophomore from Beltsville, Md., will not travel with the team to Tempe, Ariz., for the game between the Hawkeyes (7-5) and the Sooners (9-3).
Coker's rushing total of 1,384 yards this season ranked fourth in school history. He was also the offensive player of the game in last season's Insight Bowl, when he set Iowa bowl records for rushing attempts (33) and rushing yards (219) in the 27-24 win over Missouri.
cmhawks99
Well-Known Member
This is an interesting case to say the least. It seems Sally Mason's office felt the need to release a statement that they agreed with the suspension?!
Isn’t that odd……â€yes, Marcus has been suspended and we agree with it†Why wouldn’t they? Is it debatable he shouldn’t have been…?! If its legal should they say anything…?!
If it’s legal but a “questionable†case that could fall apart isn’t it still best to stand pat?!
Is this because of the last legal disaster that they make a redundant statement like this…?!?!
On a side note….I find it entertaining that at first light people said…..“Oh KF probably suspended him or something stupid†and he should be fired. Now it’s legal and KF should still be fired…all good entertainment.
Chad
SamBrownlee48
Well-Known Member
Criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt, not a shadow of a doubt. There is no such thing as 100% certainty of anything. There is always a possible doubt about anything. . . the question is whether that doubt is reasonable. Civil suit standard is preponderance of the evidence, which is more than 50%, but it could be less than 51%.
All those percentages don't mean anything irl. The jury either believes you, or they don't.
How you prove that someone committed libel is by showing, either through other statements they made or through information that they were aware of the falsity of a statement. How hard that is depends on the facts of a given case. Most often, good evidence of libel can be found in a person's emails, the websites they visit, etc.
The basic thing to remember about libel is that it is an intentional tort. It requires intent, and thus cannot be committed through mere negligence.
All that said, despite my own interest in hearing all the good info now that I am out of the loop that is IC, I think the policy of not allowing baseless rumors is a good one. It stands on its own out of principle. No need to support it with concerns about legal liability.
homes
Well-Known Member
What anymore doesn't involve a legal issue. That's so vague that it could be true as to almost anything. My GUESS - academic indiscretion - My GUESS.
I agree. The whole libel argument is a joke. No way is the operator of a free message board going to be held responsible for libel by something a message board participant posted, unless it could be proven that the board operator was somehow a willing party in the posting of the information, or if that site kept the information up even after finding out the information was false.
All Jon would have to do is post a disclaimer regarding information posted on the site and perform routine monitoring.
Like the last post said, all this should be moot, because Jon is free to run his site as he pleases. That is a sound argument, that doesn't need to be sullied by the ridiculous libel talk.
Okay:
On second thought, Jon might actually be considered a publisher instead of a distributor as he does publish original content and also has posted rules about posting. Still think would fall under the distributor guideline for the message board, but it could at least be something that an opportunistic attorney might try to exploit.
The best way for him to avoid being considered a publisher of the message board is to stay out of the discussions, not claim to be an active editor, and leave his articles/posts/blogs in other areas of the site. Therefore, he could claim the message board is separate from the rest of the site.
All Jon would have to do is post a disclaimer regarding information posted on the site and perform routine monitoring.
Like the last post said, all this should be moot, because Jon is free to run his site as he pleases. That is a sound argument, that doesn't need to be sullied by the ridiculous libel talk.
Okay:
On second thought, Jon might actually be considered a publisher instead of a distributor as he does publish original content and also has posted rules about posting. Still think would fall under the distributor guideline for the message board, but it could at least be something that an opportunistic attorney might try to exploit.
The best way for him to avoid being considered a publisher of the message board is to stay out of the discussions, not claim to be an active editor, and leave his articles/posts/blogs in other areas of the site. Therefore, he could claim the message board is separate from the rest of the site.
Last edited:
vegashawki
Well-Known Member
I ate taco bell for lunch.
gohawkz
Well-Known Member
vegashawki
Well-Known Member
I heard a rumor that you ate at Subway.
Liars!! Whoever said that is getting sued, I believe thats defecation on my character as I would never step foot in a subway (UNLESS they are doing $5 for any footlong).
Last edited:
HawkForce
Well-Known Member
I hate when people defecate on my character....
i find it funny a hack from a hack radio station put out a very unreliable rumor out there
and every internet poster suddenly takes it to be fact
no police officer would talk to just one radio station
there would be a press conference or a public relation officer doing the talk and there would be more than one media representative present
they barely reach outside the Iowa City listening area
face it was a academic issue not a criminal issue the Johnson County Attourny and Sally Mason President of the University herself addressed this
if it was truly a criminal wrong doing Gary Barta and KF would have announced the suspension
the only legal aspect is a academic issue ofeither copying off anothers test or letting somebody copying answers off yours
or plagerism, which is academic in nature and can result in a automatic F and/or expulsion
and every internet poster suddenly takes it to be fact
no police officer would talk to just one radio station
there would be a press conference or a public relation officer doing the talk and there would be more than one media representative present
they barely reach outside the Iowa City listening area
face it was a academic issue not a criminal issue the Johnson County Attourny and Sally Mason President of the University herself addressed this
if it was truly a criminal wrong doing Gary Barta and KF would have announced the suspension
the only legal aspect is a academic issue ofeither copying off anothers test or letting somebody copying answers off yours
or plagerism, which is academic in nature and can result in a automatic F and/or expulsion
cmhawks99
Well-Known Member
That IS upsetting....LOL...I can't sop laughing. Though on a more somber note I have no doubt there is a web site set up for just such a thing. A pay site of course....
Chad
- Status
