SDSU Plaintiff Should Prove Material Loss Before the Jury for Them to Win Response

Yes” or “No” or “I agree” is not an answer nor is it a response. I’m looking for developed answers that include an analysis of the scenario in relationship to the content of the reading materials. A response is a comment to someone so please indicate whose post you are responding to and develop your answer. I don’t know the context for your response if I don’t know who, by name, you are responding to. The statement, “I agree with you”, doesn’t tell me who you are responding to as all I see is a string of names. I’m looking for analysis using the scenario facts and the materials inthe readings – there is no right or wrong answer – it’s how you discussand support your position that’s critical. That means some legal theoryfor your answer must appear. However, an incorrect application of thematerial, e.g., a tort concept in a breach of contract action withoutadequate support will result in some point deduction.

Classmate discussion:

Question 1: If this is an intentional tort, what is it and what must be proved by the Plaintiff?

If the word “Pimp” was used intentionally by the sports news websiteESPN, then it should be read in the proper context to check the actualmeaning of the words. Modern criticism says that we should read textaccording to the context. Furthermore, the plaintiff should prove thematerial loss before the jury to win. Additionally, he should prove thatthis word was used based on prejudice against him.

Question 2: Does Defendant have any defenses?

The defendant website argues that this word was used unintentionallyjust for the sake of humor and there was no literal meaning behind itnor the intention was to ridicule or defame the plaintiff.

Question 3: If the Plaintiff wins, what might their damagesconsist of and what would be the basis for the calculations of thosedamages?

If the Plaintiff wins sue, then he must prepare the list of damages that must be paid to the website ESPN.

Question 4: Is anyone in addition to ESPN a potential defendant?

The four law dictionaries including Oxford Law Dictionary are used todefine the word “pimp” and the federal appeal court in its verdict saidthat the plaintiff’s claim is useless and there was no intention of theESPN website to defame the plaintiff.