oppo
Coach
The same any other rule, you already have some people getting away with stuff and others getting caught.
interesting bat rule
- Thread starter jfh
- Start date
Country35
Banned User
so then don't you have to publicly embarass the paid employees of the league then to be fair?
oppo
Coach
Do they ban umpires if they don't catch someone with an altered bat or eject them if they miss a non-approved bat? Do cops get thrown in jail if they fail to catch a thief?
Country35
Banned User
el oh el bro.....I see where your going, but at the same time if its your job to catch an illegal bat and you are going to publicly humiliate someone for using an illegal bat, don't you think the guys catching them need to have a little responsibility for the stuff too?
obagain
Dr. bats are for wimps
Those are 2 different things.
If everyone knows the rules before hand you have to pay the price, the guy at the gym didnt say if you drop 500 I will take a pic and put it in the gym.
How do you mistakenly use a senior bat?
Country35
Banned User
quite easily if you are a beginner and don't know ****
Pepe Silvia
Addicted to Softballfans
Yes actually you can publicly humiliate people. Its called the first amendment. As long as its not inaccurate its GTG.
You're either making that story up or describing it incorrectly. There is absolutely no cause of action for such a lawsuit and I highly doubt such a stupid case would ever make it to trial.
Schmidty22
Coach
Country, JHall I got your back, for those of you siting the first amendment, you are forgetting about this little clause:
Libel, slander, and private action
Libel and slander
Main article: United States defamation law
American tort liability for defamatory speech or publications—slander and libel—traces its origins to English common law. For the first two hundred years of American jurisprudence, the basic substance of defamation law continued to resemble that existing in England at the time of the Revolution. An 1898 American legal textbook on defamation provides definitions of libel and slander nearly identical to those given by Blackstone and Coke. An action of slander required:[58]
Actionable words, such as those imputing the injured party: is guilty of some offense, suffers from a contagious disease or psychological disorder, is unfit for public office because of moral failings or an inability to discharge his or her duties, or lacks integrity in profession, trade or business;
That the charge must be false;
That the charge must be articulated to a third person, verbally or in writing;
That the words are not subject to legal protection, such as those uttered in Congress; and
That the charge must be motivated by malice.
An action of libel required the same five general points as slander, except that it specifically involved the publication of defamatory statements.[59] For certain criminal charges of libel, such as seditious libel, the truth or falsity of the statements was immaterial, as such laws were intended to maintain public support of the government and the truth of the statements merely eroded public support more thoroughly.[60] Instead, libel placed specific emphasis on the result of the publication. Libelous publications tended to "degrade and injure another person" or "bring him into contempt, hatred or ridicule."[59]
The last line is what you really need to keep in mind, at the end of the email the guy specifically states that a picture needs to be included so people can point and laugh at you. I think I would have to say case won on that information alone.
Libel, slander, and private action
Libel and slander
Main article: United States defamation law
American tort liability for defamatory speech or publications—slander and libel—traces its origins to English common law. For the first two hundred years of American jurisprudence, the basic substance of defamation law continued to resemble that existing in England at the time of the Revolution. An 1898 American legal textbook on defamation provides definitions of libel and slander nearly identical to those given by Blackstone and Coke. An action of slander required:[58]
Actionable words, such as those imputing the injured party: is guilty of some offense, suffers from a contagious disease or psychological disorder, is unfit for public office because of moral failings or an inability to discharge his or her duties, or lacks integrity in profession, trade or business;
That the charge must be false;
That the charge must be articulated to a third person, verbally or in writing;
That the words are not subject to legal protection, such as those uttered in Congress; and
That the charge must be motivated by malice.
An action of libel required the same five general points as slander, except that it specifically involved the publication of defamatory statements.[59] For certain criminal charges of libel, such as seditious libel, the truth or falsity of the statements was immaterial, as such laws were intended to maintain public support of the government and the truth of the statements merely eroded public support more thoroughly.[60] Instead, libel placed specific emphasis on the result of the publication. Libelous publications tended to "degrade and injure another person" or "bring him into contempt, hatred or ridicule."[59]
The last line is what you really need to keep in mind, at the end of the email the guy specifically states that a picture needs to be included so people can point and laugh at you. I think I would have to say case won on that information alone.
MarauderYak
Starting Player
This is a cool rule, and very much GTG. For everyone talking about a lawsuit... did you miss the part where the guilty party has the CHOICE of whether they want to issue THEIR OWN apology along with a photo of themselves? Absolutely zero chance of a lawsuit because each player knows the rules when they sign up, and even if they break the rules, they still have the choice of whether or not they post their own photo.
thesteve
Addicted to Softballfans
The problem is that the charge fails at least two of these five requirements:
Actionable words, such as those imputing the injured party: is guilty of some offense, suffers from a contagious disease or psychological disorder, is unfit for public office because of moral failings or an inability to discharge his or her duties, or lacks integrity in profession, trade or business;
That the charge must be false;
That the charge must be articulated to a third person, verbally or in writing;
That the words are not subject to legal protection, such as those uttered in Congress; and
That the charge must be motivated by malice.
jfh
Addicted to Softballfans
agreed........
Pepe Silvia
Addicted to Softballfans
Yeah that didn't support your point at all. If its not false, its not libel. Your post actually says that (seditious libel is irrelevant in this situation and in America generally).
Also that is an entry about the history of defamation law and not as it exists today.
JJF13
Addicted to Softballfans
Why don't you off yourself and leave a note saying Country35 made you do it.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Some people don't realize what they are swinging. They are just looking for said asa stamp. Had a guy here try to use a ultra 2 the other day when we were playing. I called him out on it. he said it was legal because the guy he got it from was able to use it. Come to find out he bought it off one of the senior guys.
Saw a team in the church league here who had a ultra 2 and had used it all season. Only time it was called out is when one of the guys who plays and puts on alot of tournies was umpiring and he saw it. But they didnt know it was illegal except for when the umpire said "put the bat up you can't use it". Never told them it was illegal.
True. I know some guys who have played for awhile that still don't know crap about bats
you mean like the woman in McDonald's drive-thru who spilt coffee on herself and sued McDonald's because the coffee was hot.
thesteve
Addicted to Softballfans
The full story on that case is really interesting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
Short version:
Coffee gave her third degree burns on 6% of her body and lesser burns over 16% and required skin grafting.
The original suit was for $20,000 for medical and loss of income. McDs countered with $800, which was when she got a lawyer who asked for $90K.
The coffee she was served was at least 180F, a temperature that causes third degree burns in 12-15 seconds of exposure to skin (though in a British court it was presented that even at 149F burns would occur in 2 seconds).
The court awarded her around $2.8million. The case was eventually settled out of court for <$600K.
