Yeah but aren't there laws that protect whistleblowers? wouldn't that be considered blowing the whistle?
That's the thing, I don't think his legacy, what is left of it, can ever be about his "remarkable contributions to humanity". You do see the sad sad irony in that description? The only remnants left are that of his career as head coach at Penn State and strictly that.
Hold on a minute Red ... How is JoPa going to just ban the next guy in line from the premesis and avoid an explanation?? Further, he and Sandusky could come up with a straw-man reason for it, but like I said, the truth would come out. It would come out that Sandusky was banned from the premesis for alledged sex crimes against children. He would be branded a child predator regardless ... even though it had not been proven in a court of law. It would follow him around for life .. and ... That is defamation of character. You go on to say in your next post [#99] that Universities are large complex entities with laws and procedures put in place that must be followed. You just made my case!!! That is EXACTLY what I'm saying. JoPa likely could not have gone on some vigilante crusade without putting the University in further jeopardy. It had to be done by the book ... so that 1) the charges would stick, and 2) it would exonerate the University of all negligence. I know many people think JoPa was some sort of God .. but there were a lot of people, with more money, with more political clout, and with more power than JoPa had at Penn State. Maybe not in the Athletic Department, but the University is not just the Athletic Department. You seem to understand that this matter with regards to the University is not some simple .. "pick up the phone" matter. Hence .. JoPa's response that he wasn't quite sure what to do. Even with all of this .. what IF ... what if Sandusky is cleared of the charges?? What if he was just horsing around popping kids on the butt with a towel?? Then What?? ...... Here's what. Sandusky's life and carreer are ruined, and the University is held liable for it. Not saying I think he's innocent, but that is not my call .. it is the criminal justice departments job to determine that. As is, the case is already tainted by emotion regarding the topic. Granted, I side with the ere on the side of caution group. And I agree, JoPa should have taken steps, in conjunciton with the AD and CPD, to confront Sandusky, and see if he would be willing to lay low from the University for a while until the investigation was complete. .. but of course, that wouldn't have stopped a true child predator. Sandusky, if indeed a child predator, would have found other avenues for his sickness. Or, ..Sandusky could have refused, forcing JoPa to force him out, which again, sets up the University for being liable yet again. But ... we wouldn't be having these discussions.
But there are also laws that protect the accused! In fact, that was one of the premeses of our legal system, to protect the accused from Salem Witch hunt types of approaches, where a person is presumed guilty ... and who gives a damn what evidence there is.
Again you either forget or ignore the difference between actions taken by law enforcement and things like banning from a campus In law at trial Sandusky is presumed innocent for criminal act until tried in court and a verdict & judgement is rendered. Penn state and Joe are not held to the same standard. They could have acted without a judicial determination. They could have acted on their suspicion or to protect themselves. There would have been the risk of a civil suit from Sandusky only. Face it would Sandusky risk such a suit unless innocent and wasn't the risk of such a suit worth it to save even one kid from that horror?
Your user is feminine yet you refer to yourself as a "man". See how confused Joe Pa has y'all with that same sex shyt.
Winston .... there is not difference in defamation of character in the University or in the crimnal law system. If the University brands Sandusky as a child molester with no proof other than hearsay, without the supporting evidence derived from a legitimate investigation, then they are open to a legal suit on the part of Sandusky for defamation of character. I'm just putting it all in context. Penn State could not have just banned Sandusky from the campus without raising questions that would have eventually outed the cause as being accusations of child molestation. As Red noted ... these big Universities have procedures put in place by their own legal departments to protect them under the law. ALL large corporations have such. If you have a sexual harrassment case at Large Co. X, then you don't just go straight to the police. You report it to HR, who investigates, who then takes appropriate action based on facts of the case. If they don't, then they open themselves up to legal action, much like Penn State has done. The problem with this case is that it was reported up the chain, but Schultz put the breaks on the procedure. And ..he will pay for that. What should have happened, is that Schultz should have involved the CPD, who should have involved the State Authorities, who would have investigated and given the University the legal supporting evidence to ban Sandusky from the campus, and who would have taken the case further with regards to criminal acts. Granted, child molestation is unique in PA. Unless it has recently changed, every other State in the Union requires such actions to be reported directly to Authorities, but in PA, it only must be reported to the next higher level of supervision, who are then supposed to report it to Authorities.
In fact, it is not. Defamation of character requires that a defaming statement or document must exist. It is notoriously difficult to prove in court and runs afoul of Free Speech quite often. Paterno did not have to give any reason for banning Sandusky . . . not to Sandusky or anyone else. Certainly no public statement need be made. There are facilities at LSU that I'm responsible for. I control every person that has a key to those labs and I can grant or withhold access for any reason I choose or for no reason at all. Paterno certainly had the same control. I defame nobody by asking for their key back and denying them access. If they have no need to be there, they don't get access. For instance, if someone finds child porn on one of the many computers in those labs, I need to know exactly who had access. I would certainly bar admittance to a former employee who is accused of downloading child porn.
Yes they could. They are under no obligation to reveal why they're banning him from campus. They do not need a reason to ban anyone from their campus or facilities. It may raise questions, but so what? They would not be legally liable for branding him a child molester unless they slandered him in some way. I don't think banning him from campus qualifies as slander. If the press found out by other sources, then so be it.
