In courthouses around the country, the horseracing legend has taken on regulators and track owners. Now Baffert has trained his legal arsenal on two obscure railbirds who chirped about him online.
I mean it's pretty well established that Baffert has cheated so I don't think in general these suits have much to stand on. Now I'm not sure about the specifics of the guy threatening to publish a video unless he got 2k. Is that allowed or necessarily criminal extortion?
PS. If the shared link for the original Washpost article doesn't work (it should as you can share 10 a month), then try this link:
I mean it's pretty well established that Baffert has cheated so I don't think in general these suits have much to stand on. Now I'm not sure about the specifics of the guy threatening to publish a video unless he got 2k. Is that allowed or necessarily criminal extortion?
PS. If the shared link for the original Washpost article doesn't work (it should as you can share 10 a month), then try this link:
I don't know all the details, but it seems like he's suing them over twitter posts he doesn't like?
Well, his argument would be that he's suing them over slander. If there's any evidence he cheated (even if he didn't), Baffert won't win. In the US you have to prove someone knowingly lied to prove defamation. Fox News settled with Dominion for $1bn because Tucker Carlson had texted people saying he didn't believe the election was stolen, but still went on air and lied about his position, which harmed Dominion's image. As long as these two guys didn't do something like that, they'll be fine.
As far as the video thing being illegal, I'm not a lawyer, but it's probably fine. I know it's legal to pay someone hush money (I only know because the Trump-Stormy Daniels hush money thing was only illegal was because he used campaign funds to do it). It seems to me that making someone pay $2k to prevent a video from being posted would be a digital version of hush money. It could be criminal extortion if the video was gotten via illegal means, though.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
I am strongly opposed to most lawsuits of this type.
Rojo, has LRC ever been required to provide username and IP address information as part of a civil or criminal investigation? How many types of requests of this sort has LRC received over the years?
Although there have been many vile threads, a multitude of posts, and more than one or two questionable articles over the years, I sincerely hope that LRC would vigorously fight to maintain the anonymity of all of it's posters. Thanks, rojo.
I am strongly opposed to most lawsuits of this type.
Rojo, has LRC ever been required to provide username and IP address information as part of a civil or criminal investigation? How many types of requests of this sort has LRC received over the years?
Although there have been many vile threads, a multitude of posts, and more than one or two questionable articles over the years, I sincerely hope that LRC would vigorously fight to maintain the anonymity of all of it's posters. Thanks, rojo.
Agreed. I think our privacy is an important matter of principle.
I hope so. Defamation trials are usually jury trials, and it's pretty obvious that jury instructions don't matter. Both Depp *and* Heard were found guilty of it...even though the former was convicted for something his legal counsel said. On the positive side, people here will hopefully be a tad more careful with regard to other ppls reputations.
I am strongly opposed to most lawsuits of this type.
Rojo, has LRC ever been required to provide username and IP address information as part of a civil or criminal investigation? How many types of requests of this sort has LRC received over the years?
Although there have been many vile threads, a multitude of posts, and more than one or two questionable articles over the years, I sincerely hope that LRC would vigorously fight to maintain the anonymity of all of it's posters. Thanks, rojo.
I vaguely remember many years ago a poster was making threats against the president (I think it was either Bush or Obama). He made numerous threats in successive posts and posters urged the owners to notify the Secret Service. I believe one of them later posted that his info was turned over to law enforcement but I never heard any more about it. There are lots of people who make "threats" but very few are actual threats. Even Madonna publicly threatened to blow up the White House when Trump was president, but nothing ever came of it.
But as far as turning over information for the slander that goes on here non-stop, it will never happen. They would need more than just the moderators to keep up with all of it. Besides, slander is how this site gets clicks and makes money.
I am strongly opposed to most lawsuits of this type.
Rojo, has LRC ever been required to provide username and IP address information as part of a civil or criminal investigation? How many types of requests of this sort has LRC received over the years?
Although there have been many vile threads, a multitude of posts, and more than one or two questionable articles over the years, I sincerely hope that LRC would vigorously fight to maintain the anonymity of all of it's posters. Thanks, rojo.
The article states that its a claim for both attempted extortion and defamation - " Wunderler, who has 13,000 followers on X, began what Baffert’s lawyers call his and DiCorcia’s “extortionist demands to end their relentless harassment” of Baffert last spring, when Wunderler tweeted that they “will call a truce with Baffert for 500k. No shirts or mention of Baffert.” And they would sign a nondisclosure agreement, he posted." The threat is that they claim to have an incriminating video that will "end Baffert" if they reveal it.
Its also seems to indicate that the defamation is that Baffert engaged in a different type of doping than that which the New York Times in 2021 reported that he had been found guilty of 29 times by horse racing's governing body.f
Baffert of course trained Medina Spirit, the horse who was disqualified after winning the Kentucky Derby for failing a blood test and who, not that much later, died from a heart attack, still aged only 3 years.
I don't know all the details, but it seems like he's suing them over twitter posts he doesn't like?
Well, his argument would be that he's suing them over slander. If there's any evidence he cheated (even if he didn't), Baffert won't win. In the US you have to prove someone knowingly lied to prove defamation. Fox News settled with Dominion for $1bn because Tucker Carlson had texted people saying he didn't believe the election was stolen, but still went on air and lied about his position, which harmed Dominion's image. As long as these two guys didn't do something like that, they'll be fine.
As far as the video thing being illegal, I'm not a lawyer, but it's probably fine. I know it's legal to pay someone hush money (I only know because the Trump-Stormy Daniels hush money thing was only illegal was because he used campaign funds to do it). It seems to me that making someone pay $2k to prevent a video from being posted would be a digital version of hush money. It could be criminal extortion if the video was gotten via illegal means, though.
If you don't pay me I will ... Sure sounds like blackmail to me and that is illegal.
I mean it's pretty well established that Baffert has cheated so I don't think in general these suits have much to stand on. Now I'm not sure about the specifics of the guy threatening to publish a video unless he got 2k. Is that allowed or necessarily criminal extortion?
PS. If the shared link for the original Washpost article doesn't work (it should as you can share 10 a month), then try this link:
My hope is that someone sues letsrun when an anonymous poster accuses them of cheating. Then, letsrun can go after the poster and FINALLY figure out that they shouldn't allow that on their message board.
I mean it's pretty well established that Baffert has cheated so I don't think in general these suits have much to stand on. Now I'm not sure about the specifics of the guy threatening to publish a video unless he got 2k. Is that allowed or necessarily criminal extortion?
PS. If the shared link for the original Washpost article doesn't work (it should as you can share 10 a month), then try this link:
If someone is a public figure, which any world-class athlete would likely be in this context, the standard to prove defamation is usually "actual malice," which is very hard to prove.
It isn't enough to prove that the person who said these things were wrong. The plaintiff must establish that that defendant knew they were wrong or exhibited reckless disregard for their falsity. Long story short, these are very hard cases to win.
Mere conjecture that someone is juiced isn't enough to prevail on a defamation claim.
In many states, you can defend these claims with an anti-SLAPP law, and if you win, get attorneys fees. So no, I don't think these will become commonplace in running.
I don't know all the details, but it seems like he's suing them over twitter posts he doesn't like?
Well, his argument would be that he's suing them over slander. If there's any evidence he cheated (even if he didn't), Baffert won't win. In the US you have to prove someone knowingly lied to prove defamation. Fox News settled with Dominion for $1bn because Tucker Carlson had texted people saying he didn't believe the election was stolen, but still went on air and lied about his position, which harmed Dominion's image. As long as these two guys didn't do something like that, they'll be fine.
As far as the video thing being illegal, I'm not a lawyer, but it's probably fine. I know it's legal to pay someone hush money (I only know because the Trump-Stormy Daniels hush money thing was only illegal was because he used campaign funds to do it). It seems to me that making someone pay $2k to prevent a video from being posted would be a digital version of hush money. It could be criminal extortion if the video was gotten via illegal means, though.
You can’t sue someone for slander over something they’ve written. Maybe you should keep your non-lawyer thoughts to yourself.
You can’t sue someone for slander over something they’ve written. Maybe you should keep your non-lawyer thoughts to yourself.
if youre getting caught up on a slander/libel distinction, and not addressing any of the other points I made, it makes me feel like my non-lawyer thoughts were pretty rock solid.
If you don't pay me I will ... Sure sounds like blackmail to me and that is illegal.
I just looked up the blackmail statute and it sounds like the thing they're blackmailing over has to be illegal. Like, if you illegally hacked into someone's computer, and then made them give you money to give it back, then it'd be blackmail. If, hypothetically, you had completely legal sex with a pornstar while your wife was recovering from childbirth, and then ran for president, it would not be illegal for them to say "If you don't pay me, I'll tell people that we had sex". You could argue that you feel like it's blackmail, but it doesn't meet the legal definition, because there's nothing illegal about having sex, and there's nothing illegal about telling people about it.
I mean it's pretty well established that Baffert has cheated so I don't think in general these suits have much to stand on. Now I'm not sure about the specifics of the guy threatening to publish a video unless he got 2k. Is that allowed or necessarily criminal extortion?
PS. If the shared link for the original Washpost article doesn't work (it should as you can share 10 a month), then try this link:
I think Baffert would be a public figure and would need to prove malice in the defamation case. For running, I think a defamation lawsuit by a coach or student athlete would be more likely to occur than by a pro athlete.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.