False Statements On Television About Coach Josephs

Defendant made false statements on her website and on television about Coach Josephs. False statements are defamatory when the evidence is clear and convincing that the speaker knew the statement was untrue, or the speaker “acted with reckless disregard for the truth.” Stevens v. Tillman,855 F.2d 394, 396 (7th Cir. 1988). Specifically, on her website, Defendant states that Coach Josephs forces his players to use steroids in order to win at all costs. In addition, she accuses Coach Josephs of “ostriching” and “turning a blind eye” to the steroid usage at the school. However, Defendant knows that Coach Josephs was thoroughly investigated by the authorities, and was cleared of any knowledge of or involvement in the scandal. After modifying her

N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 256 (1964). It made this distinction to protect the First Amendment rights of people who spoke out against public officials or those who were involved in matters concerning the public. Public officials were deemed those who were held official titles (e.g. governor, mayor, aldermen, etc.), as well as those who were in the public’s eye prior to any scandal (e.g. celebrities, sports players, etc.). Private figures included everyone else. “The purpose of the public figure-private person dichotomy is to protect the privacy of individuals who do not seek publicity or engage in activities that place them in the public eye.” Conseco Grp. Risk Mgmt. Co. v. Ahrens Fin. Sys., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2306, at *1. Ultimately, the Court held that in matters involving public concern, whether private or public figure, a plaintiff was required to show actual malice in order to recover presumed or punitive damages. Gertz v. Welch, 94 S. Ct. 2997

The Supreme Court defines actual malice as “knowledge that the defamatory statement was false or made with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 256 (1964). Defendant is angry that her son was drugged and died in a car accident, and she has every right to be. However, Defendant has not made a singular statement against the people who were actually involved in the scandal. In fact, Defendant has not made a singular statement about the dangers of steroid usage. Defendant has only made statements to ruin Coach Josephs’s reputation. Coach Josephs was the only coach cleared of any involvement in the scandal, but Defendant was not satisfied with the police investigation. Defendant was not satisfied with Coach Josephs’s offer to testify at Court. Defendant will never be satisfied because she wants Coach Joseph to pay for her son’s death, and she has proven that she is willing to make reckless false statements to make him pay. Every statement Defendant makes is targeted at damaging Coach Josephs’s reputation, which makes them