| Blog and Media Roundup - Sunday, March 9, 2014; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 9 2014, 05:26 AM (250 Views) | |
| abb | Mar 9 2014, 05:26 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.laxpower.com/laxnews/news.php?story=37536&page=1 No. 4 Duke Visits No. 5 Loyola in Another Top Five Matchup Duke looks to rebound against No. 5 Loyola Sunday evening on CBS Sports Network. The Blue Devils recently lost to now No. 1 Maryland, while Loyola defeated No. 14 Lehigh. This will be the second of four top 15 teams Duke will face in March. The Series History • Duke and Loyola are meeting for the 27th time overall and for the 10th time since 2007. • The Blue Devils are 16-10 overall against the Greyhounds and 7-2 under John Danowski. • Duke is on a two-game win streak, including last year's heart-stopping double overtime win in the NCAA Tournament first round. Duke by the Numbers 1 – Goals Duke won by in both meetings with the Greyhounds in 2013, 9-8 and 12-11 (2OT) 9 – Assists needed by Jordan Wolf to become the fourth player in Duke history and 14th in ACC history to amass 100 career goals and 100 career assists .673 – Luke Aaron's save percentage in his three starts this season 46 – Straight games in which Jordan Wolf has registered a point, dating back to Feb. 11, 2012 20 - Ground balls for redshirt senior Casey Carroll, second behind Brendan Fowler 325 – Career ground balls by senior Brendan Fowler, third among active players 223 – Career points by Jordan Wolf, the most of any active player – 22 ahead of Kieran McArdle of St. John's 4 – Of the seven Duke opponents in March currently ranked among the top 11 42-10 – Duke's record in March since 2007 62 – Career starts in 64 contests for senior close defenseman Chris Hipps 5 – Goals by Case Matheis in two meetings with Loyola in his rookie season 3.8 – Goals per game by Loyola's Nikko Pontrello in five games, ranking fifth nationally Scouting Loyola Sunday's match-up between the Greyhounds and Blue Devils will be another top five game for Duke as both teams look for their fifth win of the year ... Loyola is 4-1 overall with the loss coming in overtime to Virginia in the season opener ... The Greyhounds are coming off of a convincing 14-7 win over No. 14 Lehigh and are ranked fifth ... Nikko Pontrello headlines the offense with 19 goals and five assists for 24 points, while Justin Ward has a team-high 15 assists and 19 points overall ... Graham Savio handles the majority of faceoffs for Loyola, winning 51 of 86 (.593) and has 22 ground balls ... Joe Fletcher anchors the defense with goaltender Jack Runkel ... Fletcher has 10 caused turnovers and 18 ground balls, while Runkel is 4-0 in goal with a 7.62 goals against average and a .585 save percentage ... The game will be just the second home contest for the Greyhounds this season. About the Blue Devils Duke is coming off of its first loss of 2014 after falling to current No. 1 Maryland 10-6 this past Saturday ... Jordan Wolf and Josh Dionne both have 12 goals apiece with Wolf adding 10 assists for 22 points on the year ... Sophomore Deemer Class has contributed six goals and six assists, while Case Matheis has seven goals and four assists ... Brendan Fowler has won at least 50 percent of his faceoffs in all five games and is 68 of 108 (.630) with 43 ground balls ... The trio of redshirt senior Casey Carroll, senior Chris Hipps and sophomore Jamie Ikeda lead the close defense ... Carroll has 12 caused turnovers and 20 ground balls to lead the way ... Senior longstick middie Luke Duprey is also a defensive force with eight caused turnovers on the year ... In goal, sophomore Luke Aaron has started the past three games and sports a 6.91 goals against average and a .653 save percentage ... He has made double-digit saves in each of his three starts. Last Time They Met Freshman Case Matheis picked up a ground ball and threw it in the net with 1:40 remaining in the second overtime to lift Duke to the 12-11 victory over Loyola in the NCAA Tournament first round ... The win launched Duke to its second NCAA title ... Matheis finished with three goals for the Blue Devils, while David Lawson had a goal and three assists ... Kyle Turri made 13 saves ... For Loyola, Zach Herreweyers had three goals and Justin Ward dished out five assists ... Runkel was outstanding in making 22 saves. A Win Over Loyola Would • Make Duke 200-122 in the month of March • Give head coach John Danowski his 335th career victory and 116th at Duke • Be the program's 496th victory • Be Duke's 139th win since 2005 • Be Duke's 79th win over a top 20 foe since 2006 Duke in the Month of March Duke is 199-123 all time in the month of March and an impressive 42-10 since 2007 ... Six of Duke's 10 losses in March have come against Maryland (4) and Loyola (2). On the Road Since 2007, the Blue Devils are 20-7 in games played on an opponent's campus ... The Blue Devils are 0-1 this season after the loss at Maryland ... Duke is 4-4 overall against Loyola in Baltimore. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 9 2014, 05:29 AM Post #2 |
|
50 years of free-speech protection By Richard Labunski March 8, 2014 It will be 50 years Sunday since the U.S. Supreme Court decided the most important First Amendment case in the nation’s history. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) protects our right to discuss the integrity and competence of government officials and candidates for public office even if what we say is inaccurate and harmful to their reputation. The protection is not complete; they can still sue. But such lawsuits are very difficult to win. It is an anniversary we should celebrate by reading Justice William Brennan’s eloquent explanation of why this safeguard is indispensable to a democratic society. L.B. Sullivan was an elected commissioner in Montgomery, Alabama, who supervised the police department. The newspaper published a full-page ad criticizing the police and other officials for mistreating civil rights demonstrators and for bringing bogus criminal charges against Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The ad, which did not name Sullivan, contained minor errors. Sullivan claimed that because he oversaw the police, he had been libeled. The state court jury awarded $500,000 – the total amount Sullivan had sought. Justice Brennan spoke for a unanimous court that overturned the jury’s award. He wrote “that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” The most significant and enduring element of Brennan’s opinion was the creation of the “actual malice” standard. For public officials to win a libel suit, they must prove that those writing defamatory content either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it was false. It did not matter whether someone else would have made the comments under the same circumstances. The key issue was whether the writer believed or should have known they were untrue. Evidence showing this is hard to obtain. The defense usually has to say nothing more than they thought it was correct. Justice Brennan also required that public officials show actual malice with “convincing clarity,” a test that prevents many such lawsuits from going to trial. Three years after the NYT case, the court extended actual malice to cases involving public figures, individuals who were newsworthy or who influenced civic affairs without holding elective office. But a more conservative court in Gertz v. Welch (1974) trimmed the reach of NYT by making it less likely someone would be considered a public figure and allowing private persons to win a libel suit with a much less stringent standard. Actual malice was further weakened in Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton (1989) when the court held that even if communicators believed the statements were truthful, they could still be held accountable if they failed to examine available information that would have shown what they were about to publish was wrong. NYT was decided long before the Internet was developed, and it has been challenging to apply libel standards to cases involving new technology. People often make damaging statements in a website or blog while concealing their identity. Even if we know who they are, it is expensive to bring a lawsuit in a distant jurisdiction, and the perpetrator likely won’t have money to pay a judgment. Meanwhile, the injurious material remains searchable for years. Congress worried that the Internet would not prosper if those hosting websites or providing access could be sued for defamatory comments posted by others, so in 1996 it granted immunity from libel suits to those who published but did not create such statements. That often means there is no practical way to be compensated for the harm suffered. Despite the actual malice standard, public officials and public figures do win libel suits. But for half a century, the NYT case has been a landmark defending our right to vigorously debate public issues without being dragged into court. The NYT ruling does not offer total protection, nor should it. But without that historic case, we would not have the First Amendment rights so many of us take for granted. Richard Labunski of Hendersonville is a journalism professor at the University of Kentucky and author of “James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights.” Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/08/3682963/50-years-of-free-speech-protection.html#storylink=cpy |
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 9 2014, 05:30 AM Post #3 |
|
David Williamson: Let Nyang’oro talk March 8, 2014 Regarding the UNC scandal: Imagine paying four lawyers a minimum total of $110,000 for a 40-hour work week! It seems to me that close to a half-million dollars a month, or possibly far more, is too much to pay lawyers for what little remains to be learned about former UNC African studies chairman Julius Nyang’oro’s alleged culpability. A saner, cheaper, fairer approach would be to offer him immunity from prosecution in exchange for his detailed, sworn account of what happened and why. As inappropriate as his actions appear to have been, odds are that he was only doing what he was asked to do by others at the university or what he wrongly believed was in the best interests of athletes, many of whom were ill-prepared for college success. Orange County’s DA ought to go along with a no-prosecution deal. That’s in part because, at the behest of UNC officials, he declined to prosecute a fundraiser for charging to UNC expensive trips with his married girlfriend. It’s also in part because trying and imprisoning Nyang’oro would be a colossal waste of taxpayers’ money and display a double standard of justice. David Williamson Durham Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/08/3682992/david-williamson-let-nyangoro.html#storylink=cpy |
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 9 2014, 05:32 AM Post #4 |
|
March 9, 2014 New York Times v. Sullivan: A Really Bad Decision By Bruce Walker Fifty years ago, on March 9, 1964, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in New York Times v. Sullivan – a decision that allowed certain categories of gigantic and powerful corporations to negligently ruin ordinary citizens with impunity. It should surprise no conservative that the particular corporation involved in this case was the New York Times or that Sullivan, the injured party, was a minor official in the South. The New York Times had carried a full-page ad reporting a number of “facts” relating to the conduct of officials in Alabama, and this advertisement described the behavior and statement of Alabama officials regarding integration. The problem was that many of the statements were not true, and that all of these errors fell in the same direction: the errors in reporting all made the Alabama officials look worse than they were. Sullivan, the Montgomery commissioner of public safety, requested that the New York Times issue a retraction, which was a predicate under Alabama law to a libel action to punitive damages. The New York Times refused, although it later did publish a retraction at the request of the governor of Alabama with regard to anything that may have affected him or his duties. An Alabama jury then awarded in the amount of $500,000, which the New York Times appealed, eventually landing in the Supreme Court. The decision in New York Times v. Sullivan is one of the most bizarre during an era in which the Supreme Court routinely created new and unexpected constitutional law, seeming to confirm Justice Brennan’s odious statement to the effect that with five justices on the Supreme Court, one could do anything. The decision created a new standard in defamation cases involving “public figures” so that a news organization could be liable only if the “public figure” could prove “actual malice.” Almost at once problems with this tortuous reasoning arose. Who the heck is a “public figure”? No one knew. Why were “public figures” stripped of the right to collect damages for actual harm done to their reputations by rogue news organizations? Because, the Court reasoned, if careless reporting was punished by successful lawsuits, then news organizations would be hesitant in reporting. The practical effect is that defamation was effectively destroyed in America. Giant news organizations can be as sloppy and negligent and destructive as they want with impunity. Careers can be ruined, lives can be wrecked, reputations can be savaged – all because the Supreme Court found this notional right to defame without consequence if the defamation is not proven malicious. Worse, this decision accelerated a perverse dichotomy regarding the actions of giant corporations. A new critter in constitutional defamation law – “commercial speech” – began to reappear in Supreme Court decisions. This sort of speech received no special protection at all. Giant corporations that are not part of the media can be soaked for tens of millions even if their statements to the public are simply inaccurate and cause harm, even if the corporations was not intending to mislead and were making the statements in good faith. The First Amendment, of course, deals with speech and press generally. It is liberty, not political debate, that is protected. Artificial distinctions in the type of speech and the character of the person defamed are not even hinted at in the Federalist Papers or the other discussions concerning the Bill of Rights. Besides, isn’t most expression a composite of many things: political commentary, religious beliefs, personal opinion, business discussions, entertainment, and so on? How and why should courts be looking at the nature of speech to determine its level of protection? The Supreme Court “solved” a problem that did not exist. The officials in Alabama, however one may feel about their attitude towards integration, had been the victims of defamation, either through negligence or through malice. Alabama law provided extra protection to defendants in defamation suits by requiring the plaintiff to first ask for a retraction, which Sullivan had done. The real victim was truth. New York Times v. Sullivan created a license for the news media to publish “facts” that were not true, as long as “actual malice” could not be proven. No one can prove such, really, so we have become inured to wildly inaccurate news stories whirling around, hurting people, and creating a surreal arena of public discourse in which no one knows what to believe anymore. Reversing this travesty and adopting a serious federal statute to require truth in public reporting ought to be high on the conservative agenda. Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/a_really_bad_decision.html at March 09, 2014 - 05:32:05 AM CDT |
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 9 2014, 05:34 AM Post #5 |
|
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/landmark-libel-case-relevant-in-digital-age/article_16f8b7ac-a723-11e3-93d4-10604b9f6eda.html Landmark libel case relevant in digital age - Columbia Daily Tribune: News THE ASSOCIATED PRESS | Posted: Sunday, March 9, 2014 1:59 am WASHINGTON (AP) — Singer Courtney Love hadn't been born and tweeting was reserved for birds when The New York Times won a landmark libel case at the Supreme Court in 1964. But when a California jury decided recently that Love shouldn't have to pay $8 million over a troublesome tweet about her former lawyer, she became just the latest person to lean on New York Times v. Sullivan, a case decided 50 years ago today, and the cases that followed and expanded it. The Sullivan case, as it is known among lawyers, stemmed from Alabama officials' efforts to hamper the newspaper's coverage of civil rights protests in the South. The decision made it hard for public officials to win lawsuits and hefty money awards over published false statements that damaged their reputations. In the decades since, the justices have extended the decision, making it tough for celebrities, politicians and other public figures to win libel suits. Newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations were the primary means of publishing when the Sullivan case was decided. Today, the case applies equally to new media such as Twitter, Facebook and blogs. Because of the ease of publishing online, more people might claim the protections granted by the decision and others that followed. "It seems reasonably clear that the protections afforded by Sullivan and the cases that came after it apply to both media and non-media speakers," said Lee Levine, a First Amendment lawyer who co-wrote a recent book on the case. "Technology has afforded everyone — and not just people who can afford to buy a printing press or own a broadcast station — the ability to disseminate information to the world. That has increased the opportunities for those people to publish defamatory statements to a very broad audience," Levine said. Levine said it's unclear whether that opportunity will lead to more libel suits, cases brought over the publication of false information that injures someone's reputation. More ways to communicate could mean more suits, or there could be fewer because people might discount what they read online, and it might not be worth suing individuals who don't have corporations' wealth. Or there might be other explanations. "Today one of the reasons I think we don't have as many libel cases is not just because the Sullivan rule is so widely accepted by everyone, but in a digital world there's so much greater opportunity for response," said Bruce Sanford, a Washington-based First Amendment lawyer. If one person says something untrue online, the person being spoken about has many more avenues to reply, agreed David Ardia, a University of North Carolina law professor and the co-director of the school's Center for Media Law and Policy. In the 1960s, the only way to respond to libel and "reach an audience was to get into the same newspaper, and that's no longer the case," he said, adding that the "megaphone" of the Internet is available to everyone. The Internet was a long way off when the Sullivan case began in 1960. It started when the Times published a civil rights group's full-page ad, with the title "Heed Their Rising Voices," that described the brutal treatment of civil rights demonstrators in the South. Egged on by a local newspaper editorial urging all Alabamians to sue, a Montgomery, Ala., city official named L.B. Sullivan claimed his reputation had been sullied by the ad's errors, though neither he nor any other official was named in it. Under state law preceding the Supreme Court decision, Sullivan won a judgment of $500,000, and the Times faced millions more in other suits. The legal peril prompted the Times to pull all its reporters out of Alabama at a time of keen news interest in the civil rights movement. Sullivan ultimately lost at the Supreme Court. Justice William Brennan, writing for a unanimous court, acknowledged that published errors can harm a person's reputation. But Brennan, himself ambivalent about reporters even as he emerged as a defender of press freedoms, and his colleagues also decided that it should be tough for public officials to win libel suits. False statements are an inevitable part of the free debate that is fundamental to the American system of government and must be protected, Brennan wrote. The only way to win: Show that the false statement was made knowingly or with "reckless disregard for the truth." The decision freed news organizations to write about the civil rights movement without fearing lawsuits. The Sullivan decision and others that followed haven't been without criticism, however, including some from three justices now on the Supreme Court. At her high court confirmation hearing in 2010, Elena Kagan said the principle laid out in the case is vital to free speech, but she noted that it allows for serious harm to a person's reputation without any compensation or remedy. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a 1985 memo as a White House lawyer that he favored making it easier for public figures to win in libel cases, while limiting the financial threat to the losing side. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 9 2014, 08:08 AM Post #6 |
|
Secret indoctrination sessions... One wonders if there is something like this at Duke; or if not, how long it will be before such a program is put into place...
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 9 2014, 08:12 AM Post #7 |
|
You can't win even then, unless you are willing to go through a hideously long and expensive process, with attorneys for the defendant(s) turning you into the villain, rather than otherwise. But even if that is so, I prefer (and feel much safer) in a system with totally unrestrained speech, than one in which there are government regulators attempting to define and constrain public expression. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







7:36 PM Jul 10