Skip to content

Sean Salisbury sues Deadspin

Last month, Sean Salisbury vowed to sue Deadpin for its history of reports regarding the man better known for his time at ESPN than for his blink-and-you-might-have-missed it tenure as an actual on-field NFL quarterback.

And now Salisbury has made good on this threat and/or promise.

The claim is for defamation, and Salisbury alleges that Deadspin has engaged in a “long-running smear campaign against him.”  The factual focal point of the lawsuit — and likely the only one that will survive the applicable statute of limitations — is the recent claim from Deadpin that Salisbury was fired by a Dallas radio station for “sexting.”  Salisbury has denied the allegation, and a report from at least one other media outlet has undermined the “sexting” claim.

“What we hope to prove is that blog sites like Deadspin are
accountable,” said Salisbury attorney Todd Harlow, according to the McKinney (Tex.) Courier-Gazette.  “They can’t simply attack someone and make a
concerted effort to destroy the lives and careers of people without any
ramifications.  The difference between other news outlets and Deadspin
is at least the other news outlets try to get it right.  We hope to make
a statement that if sites are going to behave like this, there are
consequences and they are long overdue for that.”

But, as Roger Clemens previously learned to his undoubted dismay, the pursuit of a defamation case involves opening a heavy door that can swing back around and strike the plaintiff square in the ass.  Such cases arise from alleged damage to the plaintiff’s reputation.  In order to assess the damage properly, the defendant has the right to poke around every closet in the house in search of bones.

Thus, the best pre-suit advice that the plaintiff’s counsel can provide is this:  “Think of the most embarrassing thing about yourself, the one thing that you would not want anyone to know.  And then assume that if you file this lawsuit it will be known by anyone and everyone.”

It’s unknown whether Salisbury received such advice, or if so whether he heeded it.  But it’s safe to say that Deadspin will use the legal process to search for as many embarrassing things as it can find regarding Salisbury — and that at some point any and all skeletons Deadspin finds will be displayed like Halloween decorations at the headquarters of Gawker Media.
 

Permalink 23 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Legal, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
23 Responses to “Sean Salisbury sues Deadspin”
  1. Huskersrule says: Oct 24, 2009 11:42 PM

    Well it is obvious this go going to lead to the world seeing Salisbury’s winkie. Wait, you questioned Salisbury’s motive? I think I just found it.

  2. robertamberg says: Oct 24, 2009 11:54 PM

    SS is pathetic.

  3. PervyHarvin says: Oct 24, 2009 11:55 PM

    Sean Salisbury is a world class turd. The prime example of the guy that knows it all but never did anything himself. I used to puke when he would judge QB play in others. He sucks ass.

  4. bearsrule says: Oct 25, 2009 12:01 AM

    Salisdummy is not smart enough to understand the concept here, and those Deadspin boys will rip his heart out and shit in it. This is going to get really, really ugly. If you’re squeamish, look away.

  5. nascentia says: Oct 25, 2009 12:01 AM

    Now, I’m not sure how much of a “Celebrity” Sean Salisbury is, but he’s a public figure, no? And my understanding of libel/defamation lawsuits is, in order for the plaintiff (the public figure) to win a libel/defamation case, since he’s a public figure, he has to prove actual malice.
    And my understanding of actual malice and NYT/Sullivan is that he’ll have to PROVE that not only did Deadspin knew that what it posted was false, and that it did so with reckless disregard. From what I hear, these types of suits are VERY hard to win.
    I seem to remember Michael Jackson filing a defamation suit once, and the judge (correctly) ruled that his reputation was already so tarnished, that a reasonable person couldn’t accept that the libel in question would damage it.

  6. Asswipe Johnson (Pronounced Az-Wee-Pay) says: Oct 25, 2009 12:13 AM

    Deadspin should phone Bob Griese to solve this lawsuit. Griese would have them send Salisbury a bushel of potatoes and a bottle or rum to call it even.

  7. EskinSux says: Oct 25, 2009 12:51 AM

    So……..This means PFT people can sue Vox for acting as if the Arlington Cowchokes are relavant?..Or as he says……More HotPockets Mommy….

  8. Poo Flinging Monkey says: Oct 25, 2009 1:23 AM

    Break out the checkbook, Deadspin. Here comes a correction in the blog markets.

  9. downsouth49er says: Oct 25, 2009 2:26 AM

    Sooooooooo, Salisbury sues Deadspin for defamation around the same time that RUSH wants to sue others over his “slavery” statement which he supposedly didn’t make but yet today he rants and raves about things in a college paper that Obama never wrote. WOOOOWWWWWWWW talk about double standard, lets see what these RUSH supporters will have to say about this one. Salisbury and Rush are both anuses that would do the western world so much better if they moved to Afghanistan or Iraq and became suicide bombers

  10. Bob S. says: Oct 25, 2009 2:44 AM

    said Salisbury attorney Todd Harlot

  11. PackFaninPackLand says: Oct 25, 2009 2:50 AM

    “They can’t simply attack someone and make a concerted effort to destroy the lives and careers of people without any ramifications.
    —————————–
    I wonder if Salisbury’s attorney has ever heard of Rush Limbaugh and the smear campaign “orchestrated” by the media against him a couple weeks ago ??? Including that of some pro football talk web site too !
    That’s okay, by the time Limbaugh and his attorney’s are done with everyone that lied about, slandered and defamed him, he’ll have made far more money that he would have owning the Rams. Can’t wait.

  12. Wick says: Oct 25, 2009 2:56 AM

    Even before word leaked out about Salisbury desperately trying to pimp his worm via his cell phone – one must ask one simple question.
    Exactly what was there to love about Salisbury’s on air contributions? How in the hell did the guy ever even land a gig with the Worldwide Leader? And why wasn’t he cut loose after his first shoot? What was his upside? Anything at all? Somebody give me something to love about that cat. Anything.
    The guy wuzn’t funny; wuzn’t insightful; did not command any form of respect whatsoever for his on-field or off-field efforts; and wuz just kind of an annoying douchebag blowhard with atrocious credentials. I mean how the hell does a pompous arrogant scrub benchwarmer even get dialed in like he was??? Amazing.
    It was a miracle they didn’t cut the cord way sooner. Zero upside — unlimited downside, and then he starts force-feeding pics of his doodle to the text community. Priceless.

  13. Fan_Of_ Four says: Oct 25, 2009 6:23 AM

    I like Sean’s steaks, I’m not sure what kind of meat it is but yummy just the same.

  14. xMGMx says: Oct 25, 2009 7:17 AM

    Fan_Of_Four?
    THAT was funny……. took me a second considering it’s 6am, but love the goofy humor :)

  15. JimmySmith says: Oct 25, 2009 7:58 AM

    Some should tell SS that his 15 minutes are up, its been nice knowing you, good luck down the road. STFU

  16. Barometer says: Oct 25, 2009 8:13 AM

    Florio, you need to address nascentia’s post. Very cogent points for someone blogging at midnight!

  17. Danny N. says: Oct 25, 2009 8:30 AM

    Salisbury should sue Deadspin for sucking horribly. It used to be a must-click site. Now it’s terrible.
    Just watch it Florio, PFT is quickly hurtling itself in that direction.

  18. jimmySee says: Oct 25, 2009 9:19 AM

    We all know the standard that has to be reached when a public figure like Salisbury brings a defamation suit is whether the defamer acted “with malice.” It’s a good time to brush up on the New York Times v Sullivan string of cases. I recall “malice” in the New York Times v Sullivan context means the speaker or publisher of the alleged defaming material acted knowing the statements were false, or they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The standard required in the UK is lower — which is why a lot of libel or slander suits arising form literary works or media that are distributed there are brought in London.

  19. SaintsBucsPanthersSUKK says: Oct 25, 2009 10:03 AM

    Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…………………………. gravy.

  20. PFTiswhatitis says: Oct 25, 2009 10:13 AM

    “Wick says:
    October 25, 2009 2:56 AM
    Even before word leaked out about Salisbury desperately trying to pimp his worm via his cell phone – one must ask one simple question.
    Exactly what was there to love about Salisbury’s on air contributions? How in the hell did the guy ever even land a gig with the Worldwide Leader? And why wasn’t he cut loose after his first shoot? What was his upside? Anything at all? Somebody give me something to love about that cat. Anything.
    The guy wuzn’t funny; wuzn’t insightful; did not command any form of respect whatsoever for his on-field or off-field efforts; and wuz just kind of an annoying douchebag blowhard with atrocious credentials. I mean how the hell does a pompous arrogant scrub benchwarmer even get dialed in like he was??? Amazing.
    It was a miracle they didn’t cut the cord way sooner. Zero upside — unlimited downside, and then he starts force-feeding pics of his doodle to the text community. Priceless. ”
    Watch out, you will be next.

  21. Smush Rodrigez says: Oct 25, 2009 10:14 AM

    EskinSux: don’t be a jerk. Hotpockets are tatsy.

  22. JSpicoli says: Oct 25, 2009 11:34 AM

    Salisbury was always a world class tool. I completely agree that he never had anything insightful to say. Complete and utter pretender.

  23. Wick says: Oct 25, 2009 11:57 AM

    ESPN has a lot of class commentators – Tommy Jackson is a big long-time favorite here.
    However, Salisbury certainly wasn’t one of them – he stood out like a fresh steaming shitstain on a brand new pair of Calvin Klein boxer briefs.
    What was more tired than hearing Salibury smugly bully little John Clayton? Salisbury’s slamming Clayton as “The Cryptkeeper” was more than a little classless.
    Salisbury came off as as a shameless and spiteful narcissist, with basically zero to offer in terms of analysis, insight or charm.
    So yeah – my opinion is that Salisbury was putrid, and it’s almost impossible to fathom how he even got the air time he did. It’s really mind-boggling – what did the guy bring to the table on ANY level whatsoever? Anything?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!