Part of the Mizzou AD’s problem was that “creating a hostile and racist environment” could be construed as not only poor sportsmanship, but possibly a violation of the law. The Civil Rights Act, from which we derive sexual harassment and hate speech law, uses similar language to describe illegal acts. Falsely accusing another person of a crime or unlawful acts IS grounds for a defamation suit.
But anyone can sue for most anything. The highly relevant question is, “Can the suit be won?”
So, that brings us to what grounds support a guilty verdict in a defamation lawsuit. First, the communications in question must identify the person who is “attacked.” Next, the remarks must be false. Third, the remarks must be published to a third party or parties, not simply thought. Finally, there must be a negative result, or “damage” incurred by the person attacked. Dawn would seem to be in fairly good shape on all four criteria.
But there’s a catch. As a public figure, Staley would ALSO have to prove “malice.” There are two flavors of malice. One is saying something false with the knowledge that it is actually false. Or, one says something false with utter disregard for whether or not it is true. Either test is enough to result in a guilty verdict. Staley would seem to have had a good shot at proving BOTH.
My purpose in posting this is to possibly explain why Mizzou caved in and settled without a trial. Stated simply, the other side was holding most or all of the high cards.
