Skip to main content

Defamation of Sport

In the age of social media, defamation is everywhere. From our timelines to our television screens, the defamation of character is seen in almost every circumstance. We have also seen this defamation coming rapidly from one specific source, our President. No matter who is on the receiving end, President Trump is hardly ever afraid to harm the reputation of that individual. Though, this does come with a price. By out lashing towards the character of someone that is imposing a threat on Trump, he often times hurts his own reputation in doing so. Trump has been guilty of lashing out at certain media platforms for releasing stories linking Trump to the misogyny, racism and hatred he so often takes part in. 
Donald Trump is a public figure that unveils his political ideology in front of the American public on a daily basis. It is also fairly difficult not to notice the president if you own a smart phone or ever turn on a television. Even though he is such a "beloved" public figure, all of this criticism and defamation towards the President is okay, and it also happens to be protected by the law. On the flip side, Trumps defamation is also protected. It is a protection that comes through the First Amendment of the United States of America, that any person is allowed to protect their reputation and fight back against any untruths, tarnished reputation or privileged communication. This defamation is only legal, as long as it is true and doesn't cause any damage or real injury. Which in these cases, are true.
It has been an interesting week in the realm of defamation, the president, the NBA, and the NFL. Earlier this week, Trump released a statement to the media aimed towards any NFL or NBA players involved in protests during the National Anthem. In the statement, Trump claimed that these players "should be fired" for their protests. Since the statement, many reactions have arose from players within these leagues. Players including Lebron James, Kevin Durrant and Collin Caepernick have all spoken up. The White House is supporting Trump in his statements, claiming "his criticism of players who kneel during the national anthem was about supporting the flag, not about race." (Fabian & Easly) Yet, the players taking place in the protest are taking it in a different way. This discrepancy has created unity in two leagues and many of the players are coming together to combat Trumps defamation. As both sides are currently heated and outlasting at each other, I am interested to see where the scope of this goes.

 Easley, Jordan Fabian and Jonathan. “Trump Sees Advantage in Attacking NFL, NBA.” TheHill, The Hill, 25 Sept. 2017, thehill.com/homenews/administration/352366-trump-sees-advantage-in-attacking-nfl-nba.

Comments

  1. AnonymousSeptember 27, 2017 at 6:12 PM

    I think you brought up an interesting discussion about defamation in its relation to sports, specifically on social media today. In your post you examined Trump’s possible defamation against the NBA and the NFL. While Trump’s tweets about how they “should be fired” for their protests is not exactly supportive of what these players are trying to do, it could be hard to argue it as defamation. In my post for this week I discussed “actual malice” and how public figures are required to definitively prove that someone’s words, “intended to discourage the communication of falsehoods that are deliberate or that result from reckless disregard for the truth” (Tedford and Herbeck 92). For this instance, the NFL and NBA players would have to demonstrate that Trump was tweeting lies intended to hurt their reputation.
    In the case of Trump and the players kneeling, his tweet more or less stated his opinion about how not standing for the national anthem was disrespectful. The state of mind of Trump is an important factor in determining whether his tweets were defamation, because, “no person can be guilty of actual malice who sincerely believes that the message delivered was true” (Tedford and Herbeck 92). One could argue that Trump truly believes that kneeling during the national anthem is disrespectful. If this is the case, then it could be hard to prove “actual malice” by Trump against the players. In all, I do agree that it will be interesting to see how this situation unfolds, especially since both parties are advocating/discussing two different topics.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousSeptember 27, 2017 at 11:13 PM

    I think you make a lot of really good points in this blog post. I do agree with you that Trump does defame a lot of people, especially over social media, and that its weird to think that this is protected. He defiantly over uses his power of twitter and it has come to backlash in many ways, especially with his approval rating. I believe however, he falls victims to be defamed over and over, and all over national television and social media. As a public figure, you do have to realize that this is just part of the role, and like presidents before him, he has to take it with a grain of salt and move on. It is interesting that the NFL and NBA have received a lot of backlash from Trump in the media, and though there is a personal opinion on the matter, sometimes calling someone else out needs to happen in order for someone to realize that there actions extend far beyond what they believe. I agree with you that it is hard to prove actual malice by Trump, because this is a personal issue. It will be very interesting to see how this unfolds.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more

Ch 13. Fair Use

            Chapter 13 discusses fair use. The copy right act of 1976 Cleary defines fair use. It states “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship or research does not constitute copyright infringement” (Tedford and Herbeck, 374). Furthermore, this act states four factors of consideration in fair use cases. They are as follows: “(1) the purpose and character of the use is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit educational nature; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, granting greater protection to fictional works than factual works, and to unpublished works than to published works; (3) the amount of substantiality of the portion uses in relation to the original work as a whole; (4) the effect of the use on the potential marked or value of the copyrighted work” Tedford and Herbeck, 374). We experience fair use almost every day as students, but also...
1 comment
Read more

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more