Ben's attorney says no sexual assault, "completely innocent"

[steelernation77]

Maybe because they want guys to think twice about assault? Not sure why but they do it all the time, photos and all, and not just for high profile guys either.

Ben, if found not guilty- or not even charged- should get his lawyer & SUE every publication that ran his name for SLANDER.

If it ends up he was innocent of this, his reputation has still copped a massive battering- one that will likely last for the remainder of his career, if not his life.

That is simply not fair.

First of all, it would be libel. Secondly, he would lose every lawsuit, because it is established fact that he is being investigated, which is what is being reported.

I'm not a lawyer, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so here goes:

I think some would be slander (telling the falsehood about someone by saying it), not just libel (doing it by writing it). The only reason I say that is because I have heard people on TV and radio, not just read it.

And, he might win some of them - ESPN and Fox news said something about his being accused of rape, which isn't the case here. Unless maybe they were talking about the Nevada case ... was that rape?

Philly Esq., where are you?

The quoted post said sue every publication that ran his name, so I assumed printed, which would be libel. Slander would be the spoken version.

Nobody is going to win a libel case in this instance. Ben is a public figure. He'd have to prove NY Times Actual Malice (Times v. Sullivan), meaning that he'd have to demonstrate that the publications either published the story with either "knowledge of falsity" or "a reckless disregard for the truth." Both are extremely tough to prove.

I've taken a media law class and a constitutional law class where we discussed these types of things at length. Ben would only waste a lot of money if he sued.

[stlrz d]

It's not law, it's media ethics. State laws have been struck down by the supreme court that criminalize naming the victim.

Something like 60 percent of sexual assaults go unreported, I think it's a good policy not to name the person.

Correct. That's why even after McNutty's name was out there the PG still wouldn't publish her name...and they'd even put in something explaining why they wouldn't. I don't remember the exact phrase.

But my point isn't that I want HER name mentioned. My point is- why is Ben's out there, if hers isn't?

He HASN'T been charged.

But his reputation is taking a battering.

In the court of public opinion, Ben is already toast.

And she is walking around accusing him without having her name drawn through the mud.

even the score- either give her name, or DON'T PUBLISH BEN'S.

I'm on your side. I was just pointing out that sn77 was correct.

[papillon]

Well, if he says Ben is completely innocent, we should believe that as vehemonently as we all secretly believe Ben did something wrong.

After all, we all are lapping up some nameless woman's comment that Ben sexually assaulted her, so given that we feel free to condemn on the back of one person's point of view, we should be just as willing to exhonerate based on another's point of view.

No, I think most people, myself included can't believe that Ben has put himself in this position again regardless of innocence or guilt. If this lawsuit (if there is one) isn't resolved by training camp, then the potential exists that the Steelers will enter the 2010 season with their franchise quarterback having a civil lawsuit for sexual assault pending and a criminal lawsuit for sexual assault hanging over his head. That will be a dandy way to start the year.

Pappy

[Chadman]

Well, if he says Ben is completely innocent, we should believe that as vehemonently as we all secretly believe Ben did something wrong.

After all, we all are lapping up some nameless woman's comment that Ben sexually assaulted her, so given that we feel free to condemn on the back of one person's point of view, we should be just as willing to exhonerate based on another's point of view.

No, I think most people, myself included can't believe that Ben has put himself in this position again regardless of innocence or guilt. If this lawsuit (if there is one) isn't resolved by training camp, then the potential exists that the Steelers will enter the 2010 season with their franchise quarterback having a civil lawsuit for sexual assault pending and a criminal lawsuit for sexual assault hanging over his head. That will be a dandy way to start the year.

Pappy

Put himself in what situation, exactly?

If he's innocent- what is he guilty of? Being in a club? Pretty sure nearly EVERY NFL player goes to clubs.

Hanging out with women? Dude's single- what's the biggie?

Just because 'he's the face of the organisation' does not mean we can expect him to be a monk. $100 million or $5 it makes no difference- Ben has the right to do as he wishes with his time away from football- no matter how much we wish he'd be bow tie wrapped in his house waiting for football season to start again.

If he's guilty, then throw the book at him. But really, at times i think we expect too much from these guys.

[papillon]

Well, if he says Ben is completely innocent, we should believe that as vehemonently as we all secretly believe Ben did something wrong.

After all, we all are lapping up some nameless woman's comment that Ben sexually assaulted her, so given that we feel free to condemn on the back of one person's point of view, we should be just as willing to exhonerate based on another's point of view.

No, I think most people, myself included can't believe that Ben has put himself in this position again regardless of innocence or guilt. If this lawsuit (if there is one) isn't resolved by training camp, then the potential exists that the Steelers will enter the 2010 season with their franchise quarterback having a civil lawsuit for sexual assault pending and a criminal lawsuit for sexual assault hanging over his head. That will be a dandy way to start the year.

Pappy

Put himself in what situation, exactly?

If he's innocent- what is he guilty of? Being in a club? Pretty sure nearly EVERY NFL player goes to clubs.

Hanging out with women? Dude's single- what's the biggie?

Just because 'he's the face of the organisation' does not mean we can expect him to be a monk. $100 million or $5 it makes no difference- Ben has the right to do as he wishes with his time away from football- no matter how much we wish he'd be bow tie wrapped in his house waiting for football season to start again.

If he's guilty, then throw the book at him. But really, at times i think we expect too much from these guys.

Sorry, that's not how I see it, with great wealth comes great responsibility. The fact that he's being accused tells me he's put himself in a compromised position. Other celebrities and athletes have been going clubbing without being accused of sexual assault.

He is the face of the organization and with that comes great responsibility that he doesn't seem to be able handle. Brady, Manning (both of them), Brees, Warner (prior to retirement) to mention a few manage to not embarrass their organizations with off field indiscretions. Why Ben?

At some point Ben needs to grow up and comport himself like an adult. It's disappointing as a fan.

Pappy

[SanAntonioSteelerFan]

Some poster said it best, in my mind, in another thread, since I can't find it to do a with, I'll just try to remember it -

All of us have the right to go out at 2AM to a bar. But, many of us have jobs where if we got into trouble there, even if NOT OUR FAULT, like Ben says - well our employers would not be amused, to put it mildly. School teacher, doctor, lawyer, IT guy, it doesn't matter - we do what we have to to keep our noses clean.

Ben is, at the minimum, no different. And there's a good argument that he is even more obligated to stay out of trouble than the rest of us - he IS the face of a large corporation, lots of people depend on that corporation for their living, or entertainment (that's us).

Put it this way - if the President of the United States went out and this happened to him, would we say that it was his right, and it's not his fault some hoager set him up? No, we'd say he shouldn't have been there. Same with Ben.

[stlrz d]

I beg to differ. Big difference between a football player and the leader of the free world.

[Chadman]

with great wealth comes great responsibility

Why? And responsibility to who?

Not having a go at you Pap, you know I respect you, but there seems to be this unwritten feeling that Ben owes us something. That he needs to be a poster child that we can all look up to.

But he doesn't.

He has a contract. He needs to do what his contract says.

That's his level of responsibility.

If the contract says- stay out of clubs, then sure- Ben needs to do better.

But assuming that we can expect Ben to act the way WE want him to is, well, a little holier than thou.

In the end, we are miffed at Ben for getting ACCUSED of doing the wrong thing. He could have been ACCUSED while sitting at home, if he'd ordered pizza, and some girl brought it around. He could have been ACCUSED if he'd bumped his ugly against a woman in a shopping centre while reaching for the tomato sauce.

No conviction. None. So far, he's guilty of looking like a guy that may or may not have done something to someone.

[Northern_Blitz]

Well, if he says Ben is completely innocent, we should believe that as vehemonently as we all secretly believe Ben did something wrong.

After all, we all are lapping up some nameless woman's comment that Ben sexually assaulted her, so given that we feel free to condemn on the back of one person's point of view, we should be just as willing to exhonerate based on another's point of view.

No, I think most people, myself included can't believe that Ben has put himself in this position again regardless of innocence or guilt. If this lawsuit (if there is one) isn't resolved by training camp, then the potential exists that the Steelers will enter the 2010 season with their franchise quarterback having a civil lawsuit for sexual assault pending and a criminal lawsuit for sexual assault hanging over his head. That will be a dandy way to start the year.

Pappy

Put himself in what situation, exactly?

If he's innocent- what is he guilty of? Being in a club? Pretty sure nearly EVERY NFL player goes to clubs.

Hanging out with women? Dude's single- what's the biggie?

Just because 'he's the face of the organisation' does not mean we can expect him to be a monk. $100 million or $5 it makes no difference- Ben has the right to do as he wishes with his time away from football- no matter how much we wish he'd be bow tie wrapped in his house waiting for football season to start again.

If he's guilty, then throw the book at him. But really, at times i think we expect too much from these guys.

I admit to knowing nothing about these things, but if they're asking for DNA, does that suggest that they found semen in her and want to see if it's his?

If that's the case, the "situation" he shouldn't put himself in is banging strange women at bars (with no dome even) and throwing them away and opening himself up to the jilted lover making stuff up about him. If she did have his semen in her, that basically becomes the best case scenario, right?

It's a big IF, but I'd have to imagine that's the DNA they're trying to match. I'm not saying semen = rape, but I think it would be better if he didn't have sex with her and the whole thing was made up. I'd have to think that if there's proof that they had sex, things get much worse for Ben.

It's alot of IFs and I hope that it all gets dropped in a couple of days.

[papillon]

with great wealth comes great responsibility

Why? And responsibility to who?

Not having a go at you Pap, you know I respect you, but there seems to be this unwritten feeling that Ben owes us something. That he needs to be a poster child that we can all look up to.

But he doesn't.

He has a contract. He needs to do what his contract says.

That's his level of responsibility.

If the contract says- stay out of clubs, then sure- Ben needs to do better.

But assuming that we can expect Ben to act the way WE want him to is, well, a little holier than thou.

In the end, we are miffed at Ben for getting ACCUSED of doing the wrong thing. He could have been ACCUSED while sitting at home, if he'd ordered pizza, and some girl brought it around. He could have been ACCUSED if he'd bumped his ugly against a woman in a shopping centre while reaching for the tomato sauce.

No conviction. None. So far, he's guilty of looking like a guy that may or may not have done something to someone.

Ben Roethlisberger doesn't owe me, you or any other fan one bit of anything. However, he does owe the Pittsburgh Steeler organization a 1 billion dollar corporation a lot. He gets a check for $461,000 every two weeks, has 52 other teammates that depend on him, has advertising sponsors that depend on him and has a family name that deserves better (I assume his mom and dad are stand up folks). How much more responsibility do you want for his great wealth?

He owes me nothing. I want nothing. The Rooneys and the NFL differ in their perspective on this I believe. With great wealth comes great responsibility.

If he'd been accused while sitting at home with his friends this case wouldn't have made the airwaves, because he had an alibi. But, that's not how it happened, he was there, has a pending civil case of similar violation and has shown poor judgment in the past. It has legs until someone says it doesn't.

Just for the record, I don't believe you're having a go at me; I'm taking an unpopular stance on this incident. I expect some folks not to be enthralled with my take of the situation. It's all good my friend from down under, we just have a different perspective on this one, but in true PlanetSteeler fashion it never gets personal.

Pappy