Pardon my Imusness for a second, but the circumstances have now all changed. This is no longer about an off-color remark made by an alleged racist on public airwaves. THAT particular trial is OVER. Al Sharpton got to huff and puff for a while, a bunch of uppity bitches got pissed, Imus got suspended and then subsequently fired, and that - quite literally - was that. Everyone went about their business with their own respective opinions on the matter, and the case was closed.
So what opened things back up?
A settlement between Imus and CBS, providing not only $20 million but also a welcome back to Imus as he'll once again be on the airwaves. Even Sharpton himself wasn't as rattled by this turn of events. After all, you can't deny that there is no such thing as bad publicity, and scores os sponsors were still waiting at the door to sign up with Imus' returning show. Not even calling for Imus to lose his show again, all Sharpton could offer was advice that he get himself an ombudsman.
So who's taking action in court against Imus, "coincidentally" at the same time he gets his career back AND a cool $20 million?
Kia Vaughn.You might not recognize the name, though now that it's been used in the same article as Imus, you can no doubt guess she was one of the "nappy-headed hos" who was in that fateful game that I'm sure nobody was watching and didn't even know existed until Imus and his big mouth made it known to us. She, as I predicted in an earlier post that will be moved to this site soon, is filing a lawsuit claiming slander and defamation of character. Which we all know will be IMPOSSIBLE to prove in a court of law.
There are two main points that she'll need to prove in order to have this case stand in a court:
1. That Imus' statements actually led people to believe that she is a "ho" AND that it negatively affected her in an obective way.
2. That Imus' statements were a lie and she is not, in fact, a "ho".Have fun with that!Let's tackle the first point. Imus called her a "ho". So? How many people get called a "ho", in either that vernacular or a more proper "whore", and it is taken seriously? Do you think anyone has stopped Kia Vaughn on the street with a $5 bill asking for a handjob in the adjacent alley? Has she been arrested for prostitution by the police based on Imus' "lead" that she is a whore and selling sex for money? No - they haven't. I don't even think she's had her career affected in any way, aside from her maybe playing worse because she's focused too much on name-calling and not "defending the zone" or some other basketball term that she's supposed to be doing as a basketball player. Has the WNBA turned her down because of her "illicit sexual activity"? None of this has happened, because it was a comment made in jest, not to be taken seriously, and it WASN'T taken seriously.
Now about the second point: Was Imus even lying? What if she IS a whore? Is Kia Vaughn really prepared to line up and identify all of her sexual partners to verify that none of them had to pay money in order to have sexual relations with her? How about the defense parading out possible witnesses saying otherwise? Evidence on bathroom walls that seem to compliment Mr. Imus' implications? Borderline perjurers who are willing to risk it just for the media spotlight by taking a comment out of context that makes it seem like they were propositioned by Ms. Vaughn? Sexual pasts can be a tricky thing - and the subjective nature of it all makes for various interesting interpretations of the "facts". Go ahead, Kia, and prove you're not a "ho".
Oh wait, you can't. Because you are.That's right - I'm calling her out based on a loose definition of the word "ho" or "whore". Just as a "media whore" is willing to do whatever it takes, including dirty and/or dispicable things, just to get the attention of the media - so is a commonplace "whore" willing to do whatever it takes, including dirty and/or dispicable things, just for money.
Don Imus gets $20 million in a settlement with NBC. On the same day, Kia Vaughn files a lawsuit against him seeking monetary compensation for the "slander" and "defamation of character" on Imus' part. You do the math. It's not a coincidence in the least. Kia Vaughn is just out to get some money and strike it rich with the most dispicable act in society today: suing the wealthy.
That, Kia Vaughn, makes you a whore."The defense rests, your Honor. Mr. Imus' statements are retroactively proven to be truthful, which means there is no grounds for defamation of character or slander in any way. Request that all charges be dropped immediately."(Some columnist who thinks otherwise)(Some columnist who's on the right track)(Fellow blogger's opinion)(Another fellow blogger's opinion)
Read more!
