Story about OU QB's drug bust a hoax

[snuffy]

Wed July 9, 2008
Story about OU QB's drug bust a hoax

By Berry Tramel
Staff Writer
James W. Conradt, a Nebraska football fan living in Austin, Texas, says he didn’t mean to hurt Oklahoma quarterbacks Sam Bradford and Landry Jones with his Internet hoax.


So what was Conradt thinking Wednesday when he lifted a template off The Oklahoman’s web site, newsok.com, wrote and pasted a bogus story about the Sooner pair’s arrest on cocaine distribution charges, then posted it on a message board?

The 36-year-old Conradt says he wasn’t thinking.

“I want to express my deepest apologies to the families,” Conradt said Wednesday night, after his story was reported as fact by at least two Texas radio stations. “That’s the thing I’m regretful about. I didn’t want to hurt anyone.”

An apology might not be enough to sooth this over.

“I’m going to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law,” said Kevin Jones, Landry’s father. “I’ve got deep enough pockets to do it.”

Oklahoman publisher David Thompson said, “When this was brought to our attention, we took immediate action. Through our technology and news teams, we tracked him down and told him to cease and desist. We take this very seriously and will consider legal action.”

OU associate athletic director Kenny Mossman said the hoax is just the latest in a disturbing trend.

“We feel it’s real unfortunate how many things have germinated from an anonymous starting point that are unfounded, untrue and, as this story proves, hurtful,” Mossman said.

“Coaches and players are berated, and nobody attaches a name to it. The Internet has enabled a lot of this kind of thing to happen, and it’s really disappointing.”

Conradt said he was on a Nebraska message board when some OU fans began writing smack.

“I just wanted to get ‘em all riled up, I guess,” Conradt said.

He googled Sooner sports and came across the newsok.com template and says he didn’t even realize it was The Oklahoman’s web site.

“It was a bad decision,” Conradt said. “When I got home, I got on my computer, one of the moderators on the Oklahoma site emailed me and said some Oklahoma people are upset about this. That’s when I took it down.”

Kevin Jones said he received a couple of frantic calls after the hoax spread across the Internet.

“I knew it was a prank thing right away,” Jones said. “Anybody that knows Sam or knows Landry knows the story wasn’t true to begin with. But when radio stations down in Houston and Austin report it, it’s very hurtful.

“Why would somebody be so malicious about it? Don’t know why someone would trample two kids like this. I was just dumbfounded. People need to learn from this.”

Kelly Dyer Fry, vice president of news and information for OPUBCO Communications Group, said users can determine if a story comes from the newsok.com server by the URL. If numbers precede “newsok.com,” the link originated elsewhere.

[Verb]

I think that's a bit of an overreaction. It WAS, after all, a prank, and a fairly obvious one, if you read the text of the "article." Poor guy.

[BackHomePoke]

Jack better watch out, the DO might come after him for his unathorized signature.:rollseyes:

[OKState918]

I think that's a bit of an overreaction. It WAS, after all, a prank, and a fairly obvious one, if you read the text of the "article." Poor guy.

Eh, I can see your point, Verb, but to me, the joke crossed from a mostly harmless gag to something punishable when Conradt tried to pass the article off as something from The Oklahoman. By doing so, I think it's very clear he intended people to think that the story was a legitimate one (he even went so far as to include Jake Trotter's name in the byline), so to me, it's obvious he meant it as a defamatory statement.

Likewise, since he brought The Oklahoman into the equation, I think it would certainly be prudent of the newspaper to punish him to the full extent that it possibly can. I mean, newspapers don't have much credibility these days anyway (insert DOk joke here), so I'd think they're in a position where they need to maintain as much integrity as possible.

[Verb]

The version I saw ended with something along the lines of the fact that since there is usually a spree of arrests just as football season starts, seasoned OU fans took this as a sign of a great season to come (or something vaguely along those lines.) That made it extremely clear to me that it was satire, but maybe some people didn't read far enough along. To me, it just didn't read like a real newspaper story.

[CowboyJD]

Eh, I can see your point, Verb, but to me, the joke crossed from a mostly harmless gag to something punishable when Conradt tried to pass the article off as something from The Oklahoman. By doing so, I think it's very clear he intended people to think that the story was a legitimate one (he even went so far as to include Jake Trotter's name in the byline), so to me, it's obvious he meant it as a defamatory statement.

Likewise, since he brought The Oklahoman into the equation, I think it would certainly be prudent of the newspaper to punish him to the full extent that it possibly can. I mean, newspapers don't have much credibility these days anyway (insert DOk joke here), so I'd think they're in a position where they need to maintain as much integrity as possible.

Satire and parody are protected under the 1st Amendment. I don't think any criminal or civil prosecution will be successful. If, as has been reported, he "took" the template from the DOK's website, you might arguably have some type of minor computer crime under Title 22.

[OKState918]

Satire and parody are protected under the 1st Amendment. I don't think any criminal or civil prosecution will be successful. If, as has been reported, he "took" the template from the DOK's website, you might arguably have some type of minor computer crime under Title 22.

I wondered if what he wrote might be protected as satire or parody, but does it make any difference that he used Jake Trotter as the author?

As far as civil prosecution goes, what kind of claim would either player have as far as emotional damages go? I mean, I know that's kind of a cop-out these days, but if Bradford or Jones really wanted to pursue that angle, what kind of water do you think that'd hold?

Anyway - Not trying to sound like a smartass or anything. Just curious, since obviously, you're much more qualified to comment on such things :)

[jakeman]

As far as civil prosecution goes, what kind of claim would either player have as far as emotional damages go? I mean, I know that's kind of a cop-out these days, but if Bradford or Jones really wanted to pursue that angle, what kind of water do you think that'd hold?



What sorta case do you think Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears would have against Leno and Letterman?

[OKState918]

What sorta case do you think Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears would have against Leno and Letterman?

Granted, I'm no media law expert, but I would expect Leno and Letterman would be protected because their commentary would be considered opinion (which is not libelous because it is not a statement of fact).

Likewise, the USSC protects rhetorical hyperbole, which is defined as a "vigorous epithet" or a "lusty and imaginative expression". Thus, calling Paris Hilton a "dirty pirate hooker" would, I'd imagine, be protected speech.

I think you could also lump celebrity commentary under fair comment and criticism, which protects non-malicious statements of opinion about matters of public interest. Generally, the definition for such requires a semi-factual basis (i.e. the fact that Paris Hilton has a sex tape), so I guess that means it borders more on satire or parody.

Anyway - like I said - I'm sure JD can probably do a much, much better job of explaining all this than I can. My background with media law is more on the "how not to get your ass sued off" side of things, if you know what I mean.

[CowboyJD]

I wondered if what he wrote might be protected as satire or parody, but does it make any difference that he used Jake Trotter as the author?

As far as civil prosecution goes, what kind of claim would either player have as far as emotional damages go? I mean, I know that's kind of a cop-out these days, but if Bradford or Jones really wanted to pursue that angle, what kind of water do you think that'd hold?

Anyway - Not trying to sound like a smartass or anything. Just curious, since obviously, you're much more qualified to comment on such things :)

Neither player would have any claim if it's protected by the 1st Amendment. Jerry Falwell sued Hustler magazine for a fake Campari Ad supposedly interviewing him and quoting him talking about beastiality and the first time he had sex with his mother. He sued....after the Supreme Court decision.....no damages because satire and parody are protected.

[OKState918]

Neither player would have any claim if it's protected by the 1st Amendment. Jerry Falwell sued Hustler magazine for a fake Campari Ad supposedly interviewing him and quoting him talking about beastiality and the first time he had sex with his mother. He sued....after the Supreme Court decision.....no damages because satire and parody are protected.

I get what you're saying, JD, but I guess the question I'd have is what decides whether Conradt's writing would be considered satire and parody or not - especially since the Supreme Court has made it clear that such is a "vital commodity in the marketplace with ideas".

There was a case (Cardtoons vs. The MLC Players' Association) in which Cardtoons published baseball cards depicting caricatured versions of players. There was "Treasury Bonds", "Rambo Conseco", "Egotisticky Henderson", "Tommy Lasagna", etc.

The Players' Association sued because it felt Cardtoons portrayed the players in a false light (if I remember correctly - it might have been something different), but the court said the card "provided a social commentary on public figures" and, more importantly, that the First Amendment right to free expression outweighed the players' rights of publicity.

The difference I see, however, is that the baseball players being depicted were already the subject of public controversy and discussion. I mean, it wasn't like Jose Conseco didn'y already have allegations of steroid use circling around his head, so in that instance, depicting him as "Rambo Conseco" does indeed seem like an obvious bit of social commentary.

Getting back to Bradford and Jones - to my knowledge, neither had a reputation linking them to a drug cartel, and (at least in my mind), it doesn't seem like Conradt really meant his "article" as a joke. I mean, he went to pretty great lengths to make it look legitimate (by copying The Oklahoman template and putting a real writer's name in the byline), thus indicating that he meant it to do harm.

Anyway - I guess I just don't see why that might be considered parody or satire instead of actual malice, or if it should be considered actual malice, why that might receive First Amendment protection (even if considered parody or satire)?

So. Sorry to write a novel. I just think this stuff is kind of fascinating, and obviously, I didn't pay enough attention in M-Law :)

[MisterE-NYC]

I think it would be funny if an investigation was started, and someone found out that there was a drug ring at uo, and that Bradford and Jones were part of it. I would be tickled.

I dont think it is that much work to find a template and put text on it. If I remember, a while ago, I think it was april fools, maybe last year, someone made a faux AP article about something.

If I was a bit more techie, I'd be able to do something like that and make it look good. It isnt hard to imagine drugs being used in college athletics. And trying to pull a prank and make something look legit isnt that hard and doesn't require much thought.

Here is an example that makes me chuckle
http://www.franksemails.com/pics/bush_response_to_hurricane_katrina.jpg

granted, it isnt an image from a newspaper, But i am sure someone somehwere has pasted it onto a newspaper template. Give me some time, and I can do that.

[CowboyJD]

I get what you're saying, JD, but I guess the question I'd have is what decides whether Conradt's writing would be considered satire and parody or not - especially since the Supreme Court has made it clear that such is a "vital commodity in the marketplace with ideas".

There was a case (Cardtoons vs. The MLC Players' Association) in which Cardtoons published baseball cards depicting caricatured versions of players. There was "Treasury Bonds", "Rambo Conseco", "Egotisticky Henderson", "Tommy Lasagna", etc.

The Players' Association sued because it felt Cardtoons portrayed the players in a false light (if I remember correctly - it might have been something different), but the court said the card "provided a social commentary on public figures" and, more importantly, that the First Amendment right to free expression outweighed the players' rights of publicity.

The difference I see, however, is that the baseball players being depicted were already the subject of public controversy and discussion. I mean, it wasn't like Jose Conseco didn'y already have allegations of steroid use circling around his head, so in that instance, depicting him as "Rambo Conseco" does indeed seem like an obvious bit of social commentary.

Getting back to Bradford and Jones - to my knowledge, neither had a reputation linking them to a drug cartel, and (at least in my mind), it doesn't seem like Conradt really meant his "article" as a joke. I mean, he went to pretty great lengths to make it look legitimate (by copying The Oklahoman template and putting a real writer's name in the byline), thus indicating that he meant it to do harm.

Anyway - I guess I just don't see why that might be considered parody or satire instead of actual malice, or if it should be considered actual malice, why that might receive First Amendment protection (even if considered parody or satire)?

So. Sorry to write a novel. I just think this stuff is kind of fascinating, and obviously, I didn't pay enough attention in M-Law :)

The court (likely the judge, but maybe the jury) trying the case would decide if it was parody or satire. If found that it was, there's no liability....civil or criminal. Otherwise, such liability would serve to chill or punish speech protected by the 1st Amendment.

The last sentence of the article stated, "Normally success on the field has been followed by arrests off it for the Sooners. Booster groups expressed hope that these incidents were an indication that the team was going to have an excellent year." IMHO, that's pretty clearly and obviously satirical. I don't believe any reasonable, rational reader would read that and think it was a legitimate article. Tie that with the fact that it wasn't on the Daily Oklahoman server or at their URL, and I think he's pretty safe.

Attempting to make it appear legitimate really isn't relevant to the question of satire or parody. In fact, appearing to be legit could arguably increase the satirical nature and argument. In the instant case, the "legit" appearance makes the article not just satirical of OU's past legal problem's, but also the Oklahoman's alleged tendency to dismiss them. You may have trademark issues, but I understand he ceased and desisted when notified.

If the speech is parody or satire, actual malice is completely and wholly irrelevant. In the Falwell v. Hustler case, Falwell sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. At the trial and in press conferences, Larry Flynt readily admitted he intended to upset Falwell and inflict distress.

[OKState918]

OK - I'll buy all that.

This is why you're making the big bucks and I'm back home sleeping on the twin-size bed I got when I was four years old :)

[CowboyJD]

Don't forget, I work for the state.

I'm not actually making the big bucks. The benefits aren't bad though. ;)

[kruxter]

Satire and parody are protected under the 1st Amendment. I don't think any criminal or civil prosecution will be successful. If, as has been reported, he "took" the template from the DOK's website, you might arguably have some type of minor computer crime under Title 22.

JD, I bet he didn't "take" any template from their website. The DOK is making this sound far worse than it is. My guess is that he just copied the browser side client code and then modified the HTML, graphics and/or javascript code. Every browser let's you view the "source" code which is the code the browser uses to render the web page. And if you can view it, you can modify and save it to anywhere. This is not that hard to do. He did not hack into their servers and steal anything.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think he gets convicted of stealing from the DoK.

[CowboyJD]

JD, I bet he didn't "take" any template from their website. The DOK is making this sound far worse than it is. My guess is that he just copied the browser side client code and then modified the HTML, graphics and/or javascript code. Every browser let's you view the "source" code which is the code the browser uses to render the web page. And if you can view it, you can modify and save it to anywhere. This is not that hard to do. He did not hack into their servers and steal anything.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think he gets convicted of stealing from the DoK.

I would bet you're absolutely right. I don't think he does either. I think nothing comes of this legally....either civil or criminal.

[OKState918]

I would bet you're absolutely right. I don't think he does either. I think nothing comes of this legally....either civil or criminal.

Could that be construed as stealing intellectual property?

[CowboyJD]

Could that be construed as stealing intellectual property?

I don't think you can wedge it into the simple theft statutes. There is a counterfeit trademark/trade image statute that it might fit under in Oklahoma. You actually have some real interesting jurisdictional issues if this guy doesn't live in Oklahoma. I just don't see any DA trying to make the stretch for what is essentially a civil matter between the guy and the Oklahoman. Particularly when the guy stopped immediately upon being given the cease and desist notice by them.