Robert James

This ESPN article does a good job of summarizing the Second Circuit arguments and the highly-skeptical responses Brady's attorney got on all the key issues. http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/14896976/if-judges-questions-indication-nfl-prevail-deflategate-appeal-tom-brady-suspension

My pleasure. It's fun to be able to weigh in on something I know more about than football. Trying here to answer both Mr. WEO and Hopeful. The other individual could bring his/her own suit. They also might be joined in the JPP suit because it sounds like a single act of publication causing harm to more than one person. I'm not sure JPP's seclusion would affect the legitimate public interest/concern issue. It certainly would be relevant to whether the facts disclosed were private. I could see a plaintiff's lawyer making an argument that graphic photos of an injury reveal something private, offensive and harmful beyond the mere reporting of the fact of the injury. There was a case in the state of Washington in the late 90's in which a family sued over the publication of a deceased child's autopsy photos. The fact of the death was certainly public, but the publication of the gruesome photos still caused emotional harm to the survivors. The cause of action there was infliction of emotional distress, which invasion of privacy plaintiff's often throw in to cover their bases. JPP might do that here as well. I think the impunity of the press angle could have a big effect on the how a judge/ jury would view the case. Judges are human, and if they feel a basic sense of injustice on one issue, it may lead them to give more leeway to the plaintiff on another. They, like you, might want the case to go to a jury. However, the outrageous nature of the act would certainly support the infliction of emotional distress theory, which requires the harmful conduct to be beyond what should be tolerated in a civilized society (that is actually very close to how the legal requirement is expressed). I think the subsequent publications could be argued as some sort of mitigation of damages -- the theory would be that the injury was inevitable. I would argue that the person who causes the first harm shouldn't get a pass because he inspired others to do the same. However, if JPP published the same gruesome photos, it might undercut the assertion that the act of publication was offensive and beyond the bounds of decency. Still, a third party doing it in the first instance, and the plaintiff doing it later --maybe to clarify the pubic record now that the cat is out of the bag -- are different things.

I practiced First Amendment law for about 20 years. I had a national practice and defended scores of suits for defamation and invasion of privacy against members of the press. The original poster's Google deductions were about right. First, invasion of privacy by publication of private facts is a civil cause of action under the common law and/or by statute in almost every state, as is intrusion on seclusion. Second, snooping or not, if Scheffter tweeted the private medical information, then he disseminated it widely enough to qualify as an act of publication. So there is certainly a colorable claim. Third, the question of whether this disclosure was highly offensive would almost certainly go to a jury, and revealing private medical information is usually found to be highly offensive. Fourth, your point about it not being private because people already knew about the injury may indeed be a complete defense, depending on exactly what Scheffter disclosed and what was already public. Fifth, Your point about the information being of legitimate public concern is certainly one that the defense lawyer would make. However, that would turn on the legal status of JPP as a public figure, and it is very possible an judge would find he is not one. Public figure status usually depends on whether the plaintiff had voluntarily entered into a public controversy by speaking out, and public controversies usually must concern a matter of genuine public importance, the outcome of which affects many people beyond those involved in the controversy. (Waldbaum) In JPP's favor, there is an old decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that found a member of the Philadelphia Eagles to be a public figure for First Amendment purposes. (Chuy) Aside: In the 90's I defended a Miami radio station in a suit by Dolphins linebacker and notorious Buffalo Bills hater Bryan Cox. Cox told a reporter for the station to "suck my d***" during a live interview following a loss. The following day, a shock jock for the station made a satirical, but very straight-faced report that Bryan Cox had bravely come out as gay. We won the defamation suit (it claimed being called gay was defamatory) without a determination on Cox's public figure status.) Sixth, yes juries are unpredictable, but they often love local sports heroes. I would be surprised if JPP didn't sue in NJ or NY. Sixth, plaintiffs in these types of cases usually claim, and if they win can recover, damages for emotional distress: the emotional harm of having aspects of their private life made public. Suffering horrific and disfiguring injuries would probably qualify. How strong that claim would be would again depend on the content and timing of the offending tweet compared to what other publicity the injury received.

Thanks for sharing the link, it will be interesting to see if the court of appeals in the Redskins case will take the same approach. I'm particularly interested to see where this ends up on the commercial speech issue, the government speech issue, and how they treat the fact that the law in question doesn't forbid Daniel Snyder's team from using the name, but only refuses to extend federal trademark protection to it.

BFS: battered fan syndrome. I have it too. I'll be back next year.

Whaley has done his job well, so no he shouldn't be fired. Even though Rex has been abysmal so far, if Ryan and Roman aren't given another year to get their systems fully in place, good luck getting any half-decent coach to give Buffalo a shot in the near future.

Maybe a protest -- someone doing their self-appointed job exactly right . . .

Philadephia: 248 yards total offense. New England: 424yards total offense. Philadephia: total of 58 plays in 25:44 of possession. New England: 86 plays in 34:16 of possession. Philadelphia: 2 passing TDs, no rushing TDs. New England: 3 passing TDs 1 rushing TD Flukey game. No clear evidence of a striking Philadephia revival. Of course, the Bills haven't proven themselves to be dominant and will have to fight for every win.

Plays with passion, and more under control than at the beginning of the year. Certainly a great waiver wire pick up. Another strong Whaley move.

If only Tyrod didn't suck . . .

That's another reason the Gilmore back tackle is bad football. Hope he's okay.

Patented Gilmore back tackle.

Nice one. Fixed.

Peyton Manning First-Year QB Stats: Completion Percentage: 56.7 Yards Per Attempt: 6.5 Interceptions: 28 (26 TDS) QB Rating: 71.2 W-L 3-13 Why did they keep the bum? Tyrod is no Peyton Manning? Neither was Peyton Manning in his first year. Bottom line: The jury is out. http://www.peytonmanning18.com/1998.html

I didn't see the second half today, but here are some of Tyrod's statistical rankings among all NFL QBs: Completion percentage: 4th (67.9) Yards per attempt: 7th (7.87) Interceptions thrown: tied for second lowest among starters, with 4 all year QB rating: 5th (100.9) Rushing: Couldn't find rankings, but I think we can agree he's pretty good Yes, the jury's still out on whether he will be a franchise QB, but I'd say he's doing well for his first year as a starter. http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/quarterbackRating

Tyrod + Arrowhead noise + Bills headsets - 1/2 Bills D-line = Chiefs 24 Bills 13

481

Too early to call. Only his 9th start, and however lacking he was tonight on the road against the best team in football, he had a higher completion percentage, higher QB rating, and fewer INTs than Brady. Though Brady did edge him by 44 yards.

I almost always skip Sullivan. He strikes me as both over-critical and self agrandizing. I started to skim the TT article, but stopped: I don't need him to tell me that Taylor hasn't yet proven himself to be a franchise QB. After all, who legitimately can be called a franchise QB after seven NFL starts?

Agreed. Largely the same personnel excelled under Pettine. Then they had to change systems under Schwartz and got even better that same year. This year, with a stronger secondary, they have regressed significantly to the middle of the pack in points and yards per game. And of course, sacks have plummeted. It is true that the league is making it hard on DBs, but every team faces that, and comparatively we have regressed.

Or 15 yards for excessive celebration of a laptop purchase.

But not so great by number 70, which is why it only goes for about 3 yards. But definitely, props to 71!

Except New York State, since they banned fracking. http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/new_york_officially_bans_hydrofracking.html

I've Got You Under My Skin Frank Sinatra I'd sacrifice anything come what might For the sake of having you near In spite of a warning voice that comes in the night And repeats, repeats in my ear Don't you know little fool You never can win Use your mentality, wake up to reality But each time I do just the thought of you Makes me stop before I begin Because I've got you under my skin

I have heard that some people use a VPN to route their Internet connection through European servers, thus enabling them to purchase NFL Game Pass. I understand that this enables them to see all of the Bills games (except hypothetical post-season contests) live and in archived/condensed form for $99 per year. I, of course, have no personal experience with this, as I imagine it probably is not what the NFL has in mind in offering this fine service only to out-of-country fans.