Three MSU students sue professors for libel

grizphan · Post by **grizphan** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:15 am

Anybody see this "art". And our tax dollars get to defend these two idiots.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006 ... s/br74.txt

Please don't take this as Cats suck, I would say the exact same thing had this happened over here.

WolfPtCat · Post by **WolfPtCat** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:52 am

Does anyone have any links to actual image?? I am curious to see exactly how retarded this professor is.

Post by **rtb** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:07 pm

Picture from Chronicle

This should be the picture, but it is slow loading right now, so I don't know if it is working.

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:55 pm

rtb wrote:Picture from Chronicle

This should be the picture, but it is slow loading right now, so I don't know if it is working.

That's the pic that was in the 'Chronicle".

Hello Kitty · Post by **Hello Kitty** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:06 pm

I am sorry but I have to side with the students here. It is pretty appalling that this professor used his art to side with his wife and smear 6 students who did not cheat. If I was accused of cheating when I had not cheated and then a professor bashed me openly with art I would be very embarrassed and upset. Even if the students had been found guilty of cheating I think the art is inappropriate and juvenile. Weasels?

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:45 pm

Everyone has to be so damn careful not to hurt anyone's feelings in this day and age. The PC police strike again!!!

Buck up you pansies...

Also, this sue-happy society we live in makes me want to retch.

Malice? Invasion of privacy? Negligence? Give me a ****** break.

grizphan · Post by **grizphan** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:47 am

grizzh8r wrote:Everyone has to be so damn careful not to hurt anyone's feelings in this day and age. The PC police strike again!!! Buck up you pansies...

Also, this sue-happy society we live in makes me want to retch. Malice? Invasion of privacy? Negligence? Give me a ****** break.

First, its not about hurt feelings, its about hurt reputations. Second, they are not suing for any of those bolded above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

In English and American law, and systems based on them, libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), the tort or delict of publishing (to a third party) a false statement that negatively affects someone's reputation.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "libel" and "slander". Libel is defamation that can be seen, such as in writing, printing, effigy, a movie, or a statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard.

Innocent until proven guilty?

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:57 pm

grizphan wrote:
grizzh8r wrote:Everyone has to be so damn careful not to hurt anyone's feelings in this day and age. The PC police strike again!!! Buck up you pansies...

Also, this sue-happy society we live in makes me want to retch. Malice? Invasion of privacy? Negligence? Give me a ****** break.
Second, they are not suing for any of those bolded above.

Oh really?

"Their lawsuit, filed earlier this year, seeks unspecified damages for libel, malice, invasion of privacy and negligence."

Source: (last paragraph) http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006 ... s/br74.txt

It is all about money. These three just want a free ride, like most of the young adults my age, and that is what really sickens me. Libel, okay I can understand that, but the rest is BS.

profisme · Post by **profisme** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:41 am

I happen to know two of the people who are suing. I am not familiar with the situation, however one of the students is quite honestly one of the most hard-working, upstanding young people that I have had the pleasure of meeting. If they believe that their reputations have been hurt, then they have every reason to sue for libel. The law was created to protect people from untrue allegations that have been printed, stated, or in this case painted.

If any of you readers would have had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Kent Molin, you would find out very quickly that he is not only extremely responsible and incredibly bright, but he is also one of the most personable and likable people you could meet. He certainly is no cheater nor is he a weasel, either literally or metaphorically.

whitetrashgriz · Post by **whitetrashgriz** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:49 am

we need new art teachers. not because of this situation, but because right now my 4 year old is finger painting and it looks 10 times better than whatever that weasel thing was! how old are our art teachers?

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 11:23 am

whitetrashgriz wrote:we need new art teachers. not because of this situation, but because right now my 4 year old is finger painting and it looks 10 times better than whatever that weasel thing was! how old are our art teachers?

My thoughts.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 12:28 pm

whitetrashgriz wrote:we need new art teachers. not because of this situation, but because right now my 4 year old is finger painting and it looks 10 times better than whatever that weasel thing was! how old are our art teachers?

Although, in all fairness, you could go to the greatest art museums in the world and say the same thing about any of their impressionist or modern art.

grizphan · Post by **grizphan** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 4:07 pm

grizzh8r wrote:
grizphan wrote:
grizzh8r wrote:Everyone has to be so damn careful not to hurt anyone's feelings in this day and age. The PC police strike again!!! Buck up you pansies...

Also, this sue-happy society we live in makes me want to retch. Malice? Invasion of privacy? Negligence? Give me a ****** break.
Second, they are not suing for any of those bolded above.
Oh really?

"Their lawsuit, filed earlier this year, seeks unspecified damages for libel, malice, invasion of privacy and negligence."

Source: (last paragraph) http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006 ... s/br74.txt

It is all about money. These three just want a free ride, like most of the young adults my age, and that is what really sickens me. Libel, okay I can understand that, but the rest is BS.

You got me and I apologize. I did not read the article close enough.

I am not a lawyer and really don't understand the legal definitions of those terms. My point is what the teacher did was wrong. Plain and simple.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 5:29 pm

I think what the professor did was outrageous, unprofessional, and completely inappropriate; however, I also think the students in this case are going to have a hard time winning their lawsuit.

Of the claims mentioned in the article, the only theory I see them having any chance of winning on is the invasion of privacy claim. They should lose the libel claim, because by definition, libel involves the publication of false factual assertions about a person. This professor's artwork, as offensive as it may be, does not contain any factual assertions; it only contains the professor's opinion that the students are "foolish weasels," and arguably, an implication that he believes they cheated. Publication of a person's opinion, however unflattering it may be, is not libel.

The biggest problem with the negligence claim is that a plaintiff cannot collect punative damages for negligence, so even if they can convince a jury that it was "negligent" of the professor to make the art public, they would have to prove that they suffered some actual, quantifiable damage from the episode in order to recover anything -- and remember, they would have to show that they suffered damages as a result of the artwork, not just as a result of the cheating allegations/disciplinary proceeding. Put simply, I cannot see any way they could prove that they suffered quantifiable damages from this.

That leaves invasion of privacy. There are a few different "flavors" of invasion of privacy lawsuits, one of which involves "the portrayal of a person in a false light." I assume that to be the argument that the kids' lawyer is making. On that claim it is possible that the kids may be able to win, but one thing that will make it difficult will be the burden of proof -- remember, the kids are the plaintiffs now, not the defendants, and as the plaintiffs, they have the burden of proving their case. In other words, they no longer get the benefit of a "presumption of innocence" on the question of whether or not they cheated -- to win, they have to prove that they were portrayed in a false light, and that means proving that they didn't cheat, which is a lot harder than just proving that there isn't enough evidence that they did.

Just my .02 worth...and btw, this isn't my area and I haven't thought about any of this stuff since the bar exam, so if any other attorneys or law students out there disagree with any of this, please don't be shy about chiming in.

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 5:49 pm

Grizlaw wrote:I think what the professor did was outrageous, unprofessional, and completely inappropriate; however, I also think the students in this case are going to have a hard time winning their lawsuit.

Of the claims mentioned in the article, the only theory I see them having any chance of winning on is the invasion of privacy claim. They should lose the libel claim, because by definition, libel involves the publication of false factual assertions about a person. This professor's artwork, as offensive as it may be, does not contain any factual assertions; it only contains the professor's opinion that the students are "foolish weasels," and arguably, an implication that he believes they cheated. Publication of a person's opinion, however unflattering it may be, is not libel.

The biggest problem with the negligence claim is that a plaintiff cannot collect punative damages for negligence, so even if they can convince a jury that it was "negligent" of the professor to make the art public, they would have to prove that they suffered some actual, quantifiable damage from the episode in order to recover anything -- and remember, they would have to show that they suffered damages as a result of the artwork, not just as a result of the cheating allegations/disciplinary proceeding. Put simply, I cannot see any way they could prove that they suffered quantifiable damages from this.

That leaves invasion of privacy. There are a few different "flavors" of invasion of privacy lawsuits, one of which involves "the portrayal of a person in a false light." I assume that to be the argument that the kids' lawyer is making. On that claim it is possible that the kids may be able to win, but one thing that will make it difficult will be the burden of proof -- remember, the kids are the plaintiffs now, not the defendants, and as the plaintiffs, they have the burden of proving their case. In other words, they no longer get the benefit of a "presumption of innocence" on the question of whether or not they cheated -- to win, they have to prove that they were portrayed in a false light, and that means proving that they didn't cheat, which is a lot harder than just proving that there isn't enough evidence that they did.

Just my .02 worth...and btw, this isn't my area and I haven't thought about any of this stuff since the bar exam, so if any other attorneys or law students out there disagree with any of this, please don't be shy about chiming in.

Thanks for saying what I could not formulate myself GL. Chalk it up to being an engineer (almost

).

Whaddyaknow, lawyers are helpful sometimes...

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 5:57 pm

grizzh8r wrote:
Grizlaw wrote:I think what the professor did was outrageous, unprofessional, and completely inappropriate; however, I also think the students in this case are going to have a hard time winning their lawsuit.

Of the claims mentioned in the article, the only theory I see them having any chance of winning on is the invasion of privacy claim. They should lose the libel claim, because by definition, libel involves the publication of false factual assertions about a person. This professor's artwork, as offensive as it may be, does not contain any factual assertions; it only contains the professor's opinion that the students are "foolish weasels," and arguably, an implication that he believes they cheated. Publication of a person's opinion, however unflattering it may be, is not libel.

The biggest problem with the negligence claim is that a plaintiff cannot collect punative damages for negligence, so even if they can convince a jury that it was "negligent" of the professor to make the art public, they would have to prove that they suffered some actual, quantifiable damage from the episode in order to recover anything -- and remember, they would have to show that they suffered damages as a result of the artwork, not just as a result of the cheating allegations/disciplinary proceeding. Put simply, I cannot see any way they could prove that they suffered quantifiable damages from this.

That leaves invasion of privacy. There are a few different "flavors" of invasion of privacy lawsuits, one of which involves "the portrayal of a person in a false light." I assume that to be the argument that the kids' lawyer is making. On that claim it is possible that the kids may be able to win, but one thing that will make it difficult will be the burden of proof -- remember, the kids are the plaintiffs now, not the defendants, and as the plaintiffs, they have the burden of proving their case. In other words, they no longer get the benefit of a "presumption of innocence" on the question of whether or not they cheated -- to win, they have to prove that they were portrayed in a false light, and that means proving that they didn't cheat, which is a lot harder than just proving that there isn't enough evidence that they did.

Just my .02 worth...and btw, this isn't my area and I haven't thought about any of this stuff since the bar exam, so if any other attorneys or law students out there disagree with any of this, please don't be shy about chiming in.

Thanks for saying what I could not formulate myself GL. Chalk it up to being an engineer (almost ).

Whaddyaknow, lawyers are helpful sometimes...

Especially if you don't have enough weight for your anchor

tetoncat · Post by **tetoncat** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:56 pm

I have always been suprised by lawsuits that claim libel or slander and how the person was wrong because what someone said or did caused such negative publicity and harm. The lawsuits generally inform way more people about a whole incident than the original action ever did. If they are so upset and damaged by this why would you bring it out in a lot greater manner. Up until the lawsuit I had never heard about this, now I have.