It’s all fun and games ’til you (maybe) libel someone

Deadspin earlier this week began a series in which it invited readers to send in stories about nightmare coaches. The first one, about a youth football coach whose actions led to a kid’s broken collar bone, was a funny read.

The second threw up red flags all around. It sounded like BS. It was anonymous. It just didn’t sound right. But Deadspin has earned our trust by knowing what to run and what not to. It’s an entertaining site, and its radar, historically, is strong.

This time, it wasn’t. The anonymous reader said he was trying to get Muhammad Ali’s autograph at a charity event in Arizona. He said that, at this event, Arizona State baseball coach Pat Murphy threatened to beat him up. Deadspin ran the story, which turned out to be a lie.

Here is Deadspin’s posted exchange between the site’s Drew Magary and the anonymous emailer:
Here is Deadspin’s full explanation. And here is Deadspin editor AJ Daulerio attempting to defend Magary with lines such as, “When you run one-sided versions of stories, which we often do here, the goal is just that — to show one person’s side.”

Deadspin took down the original story, which I read and now wished I would have saved.

One question now is whether Deadspin committed libel against Murphy. So let’s examine:

• Deadspin published that Murphy threatened assault. In many states, assault and battery is when someone not only does physical harm, but acts in a threatening manner to put another in fear of harm. They potentially wrote that Murphy had committed a crime when they published Murphy had threatened a physical confrontation.

• Murphy is coach of one of college baseball’s best programs. He also was an organizer of the charity event attended by Ali. That makes Murphy a public figure. It is harder for public figures to pursue libel litigation than ordinary citizens. The “false and defamatory statement” element isn’t enough for a public figure.

• For a public figure to prove libel, he must prove one of a couple of things. One is malicious intent on the part of the author, in this case Magary and Deadspin. There clearly was no malicious intent. Another possible track of litigation is to prove that the author “issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.” Daulerio admitted Deadspin runs anonymous, one-sided stories. That certainly could be viewed as reckless disregard for the truth.

• Internet media law, while still developing, isn’t hazy on this issue. Libel is libel.

Whether Murphy plans on pursuing the matter is anyone’s guess. If he does, Deadspin won’t be able to hide behind the fact that it took down the post. It was there, and it was read by the general public. You can take down a page, but you can’t make a reader un-read a story.

An email has been sent to Deadspin seeking comment.

Photo of Murphy used for illustration taken from replayphotos.com