Is Evel Knievel a Pimp?
juengling_fritz at SALKEIZ.K12.OR.US
Wed Feb 2 21:20:48 UTC 2005
This is an interesting verdict. In our school district, guilt is determined by the hearer's perception (maybe not even the one to whom a comment is directed), not the intent of speaker. So, "You're a dork!" is sexual harassment if anyone in earshot understands 'dork' to mean the male member. Showing another definition, such as "fool, nerd, etc." in a dictionary is no defense. My question is whether a kid can take the school district to court after having been punished for sexual harrassment after saying "you're a dork', using the -I-meant-nerd-not-male-member-and-here-it, ie.nerd,-is-in- the-dictionary-defense. Would our school district have to change its policy?
>>> Bill.Mullins at US.ARMY.MIL 02/02/05 12:28PM >>>
>From the Sports Law Blog
"Famous daredevil Evel Knievel had his lawsuit against ESPN thrown out
by a federal appeals court yesterday. Knievel and his wife had sued ESPN
for defamation stemming from a caption to a picture posted on its
website (which has since been taken down). The picture, of Knievel and
his wife, had a caption that read: "Evel Knievel proves that you're
never too old to be a pimp."
This is of interest because the decision centered on the various slang
meanings of the word "pimp". The court, whose decision is linked in the
above blog entry, determined that in this case, a non-literal meaning
should be inferred, based on the context and appearance of many other
slang terms; therefore it was not reasonable to assume or infer (as,
apparently Knievel and/or his attorneys did) that ESPN was saying that
Evel Knievel was in fact a pimp, and had turned out his wife.
The decision cites Lighter's HDAS. Jon is now a part of legal history
(and may have been for some time, for all I know).
More information about the Ads-l