What Consequences Ensue for Deadspin Airing ESPN's Dirty Laundry?

It has been recently discovered that ESPN baseball analyst Steve Phillips consented to an extramarital affair with a 22-year-old production assistant who then allegedly stalked his family. Deadspin, a popular sports blogging site, reported on the story, but when the New York Post broke the story, Deadspin felt they had received misleading information about the affair from their ESPN employee source.

Another blogger said that Deadspin's editor A.J. Daulerio is just mad because "the New York Post did his job better than him."

What did Deadspin's editor A.J. Daulerio do in retaliation? He took it upon himself to "unload the inbox of all the sordid rumors received over the years about various ESPN employees," which he posted on the Website. Basically, Deadspin has concocted a cesspool of gossip based on rumors about ESPN employees that may or may not be true.

Among these rumors are allegations of more sexual relationships and crude behavior between employees with some names included.

ESPN is rightfully enraged. What makes it right to write potentially libelous material just because it's on the Internet and not in a newspaper? Right now the only preceding case that governs whether or not the material published on Deadspin is libelous is the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case. The argument is that material published on the Internet works differently than hard copy print.

Many people, including Gawker founder Nick Denton, say that stories published online are a "work in progress." He actually urges his employees to publish material that may or may not be confirmed as long as it is indicated that the information is still up in the air. He justifies this practice by saying that the Internet is a completely different medium than newspaper which operates on a different timescale.

"The Web has obviously changed journalistic standards," he wrote in an e-mail response to TIME. "It demands faster turnaround for news stories; exposes the stiflingly cozy relationships between many media outlets and the organizations they cover; and it also allows us to correct and expand on our stories as we go."

So what will happen now? If Deadspin's allegations are true, there is no case. If they are, it will be interesting to see if any leeway is given in conjunction with the New York Times v. Sullivan standards. Only time will tell: as of now, ESPN has not commented on any legal action against Deadspin.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1932286,00.html