Bobby Hull

[MattPie]

I’m skeptical that a Moscow newspaper uncovered what would be an outrageous viewpoint that teammates, fans, and thousand of interviewers over decades failed to uncover. If there’s other evidence, let me know. I won’t judge the veracity of the slander by the intensity of the response.

 

You're right to be skeptical. It's also not impossible that no one in the western hockey press would dare write a take down piece on a Canadian National hero. I'm stereotyping here but, being an old white guy from rural Canada, I'd say it's a higher-than-average chance that "Crazy Uncle Bobby" holds some views that are deplorable. Maybe he could run of office in Illinois..

[Neo]

You're right to be skeptical. It's also not impossible that no one in the western hockey press would dare write a take down piece on a Canadian National hero. I'm stereotyping here but, being an old white guy from rural Canada, I'd say it's a higher-than-average chance that "Crazy Uncle Bobby" holds some views that are deplorable. Maybe he could run of office in Illinois..

True! Especially in a more press friendly era.

[ubkev]

You're right to be skeptical. It's also not impossible that no one in the western hockey press would dare write a take down piece on a Canadian National hero. I'm stereotyping here but, being an old white guy from rural Canada, I'd say it's a higher-than-average chance that "Crazy Uncle Bobby" holds some views that are deplorable. Maybe he could run of office in Illinois..

[LGR4GM]

... Nope

Re read it... Just nope.

[nfreeman]

No. Someone with his fame and assets would have pressed the issue far beyond a single denial written by a publicist.

 

He played a long time ago.  I doubt he's wealthy.  Moreover, there is probably no way, regardless of how much cash one is prepared to spend, to force a Russian newspaper to issue a retraction.

 

 

I believe he was a deplorable person. I heard this decades ago. I’m old.

 

I don’t know if he’s still a deplorable person, or not. This would be intersting to me when opining on how he should be treated, today. And, before someone puts words into my post (“so, you’re saying ....”), what he’s alleged to have done is equal parts dispicable, sad, brutal and hurtful. Maybe I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, but I’ve known good people who were bad for a long time. I need to learn more before applying judgment.

 

As to nfreeman’s question, I offer the following. Allegations made by Russian newspapers appropriately line the bottom of birdcages. There is no threshold of outrage and effort I need for him to meet in his denials. It’s allegations that “should” be proved, not denials. I think that’s how it works.

 

I’m skeptical that a Moscow newspaper uncovered what would be an outrageous viewpoint that teammates, fans, and thousand of interviewers over decades failed to uncover. If there’s other evidence, let me know. I won’t judge the veracity of the slander by the intensity of the response.

 

Great post and good to see ya, Neo!

 

Of course, the wife-beating allegations -- which seem much more credible (although I haven't researched those either) -- certainly support the "despicable" verdict.

 

 

You're right to be skeptical. It's also not impossible that no one in the western hockey press would dare write a take down piece on a Canadian National hero. I'm stereotyping here but, being an old white guy from rural Canada, I'd say it's a higher-than-average chance that "Crazy Uncle Bobby" holds some views that are deplorable. Maybe he could run of office in Illinois..

 

Well, the Canadian media (and Canada generally for that matter) is pretty PC.  I don't see them covering up this kind of thing for the benefit of a white athlete.

[Sabel79]

He played a long time ago.  I doubt he's wealthy.  Moreover, there is probably no way, regardless of how much cash one is prepared to spend, to force a Russian newspaper to issue a retraction.

 

The Chicago Tribune, though?

[nfreeman]

The Chicago Tribune, though?

But didn’t they just quote the Russian paper?

[etiennep99]

John 8:1-11.  That's my point about the Amish, etc. Ya know, a metaphor for abstract concepts about right/wrong, community, etc.

 

I don't know Bobby Hull. Even though I don't agree with eugenics (for religious, scientific, and practical reasons), *I* cannot condemn Bobby Hull.   In contrast to Hitler, I think that Hull could be redeemable (assuming that the negative reports are true). And maybe he is already redeemed, but that's not sensational enough to publish.   Ya know, if it bleeds, it leads.... Just sayin'.

[Sabel79]

But didn’t they just quote the Russian paper?

They still ran with it. “I heard it from somebody else” is not a defense to libel.

[etiennep99]

It seems ironic that some who defend Kane might be condemning Hull.  And in my own case, someone who wanted Kane off the team, is trying to defend Hull. [Difference is that Kane was arrested, there was video evidence, and more than one woman was involved as I recall. Them's not rumors.

And *we* in the stands saw little evidence of a change, though one was reported....Really, it's the Pegula's decision on that one. They moved fast on Brandon and wanted to move on from Kane. I'll have to trust their insight for now.]

[nfreeman]

They still ran with it. “I heard it from somebody else” is not a defense to libel.

 

Yes, but truth is a defense.  "The Moscow Times reported that Hull said XYZ" -- which is what the Tribune reported -- is a true statement.

 

 

It seems ironic that some who defend Kane might be condemning Hull.  And in my own case, someone who wanted Kane off the team, is trying to defend Hull. [Difference is that Kane was arrested, there was video evidence, and more than one woman was involved as I recall. Them's not rumors.

And *we* in the stands saw little evidence of a change, though one was reported....Really, it's the Pegula's decision on that one. They moved fast on Brandon and wanted to move on from Kane. I'll have to trust their insight for now.]

 

It's far from certain that there was video evidence.  It was never made public -- and if there had been a video showing Kane hitting a woman, it would've come out. 

 

As for whether the reports about Kane were rumors -- there is zero evidence that there was anything other than false accusations.

 

Kane might've been a dirtbag, or he might not.  But there is no more to establish that he was guilty in those incidents than there was to establish that Hull said those things to the Moscow Times.

[Sabel79]

Of course, the possibility that he felt (entirely correctly) that that he could trot that out for a Russian audience and get no blowback is there.

 

"Not running for office" indeed...

[Eleven]

He played a long time ago.  I doubt he's wealthy.  Moreover, there is probably no way, regardless of how much cash one is prepared to spend, to force a Russian newspaper to issue a retraction.

 

 

 

Yeah, I didn't mean a lawsuit. I meant do SOMETHING to FORCEFULLY assert that he didn't say it. How about getting a Canadian publication to write a detailed article about how he's the victim of bad Russian press? Especially at the time, that would have been easy to do were he really innocent.

 

As for whether he's wealthy, a simple google search for "Bobby Hull net worth" gives a figure of $10M.  

Edited May 15, 2018 by Eleven

[That Aud Smell]

Even though I don't agree with eugenics (for religious, scientific, and practical reasons), *I* cannot condemn Bobby Hull.   

 

 

Yes, but truth is a defense.  "The Moscow Times reported that Hull said XYZ" -- which is what the Tribune reported -- is a true statement.

 

That's not quite how defamation law works -- a few narrow exceptions aside.

[Stoner]

Hitler did have many good ideas. He ordered his vaunted confectioners unit to invent the hard shell chocolate topping for ice cream as a way of bucking up the German people. It took Hersheys decades to perfect it. He also came up with the idea for the Post It note while in the bunker with Eva. Alas, he went too far — his stuffed crust pizza was a big flop around the office.

[nfreeman]

That's not quite how defamation law works -- a few narrow exceptions aside.

Well, I don’t know much about libel/slander/defamation, but is it not the case that none of those claims is made out by a newspaper reporting that “the Moscow Times has reported XYZ?”

[Sabres Fan in NS]

The only positive legacy of Hitler, if I can call it that, is this ...

 

He gave the German people a car and it eventually went global. VW.

[That Aud Smell]

Well, I don’t know much about libel/slander/defamation, but is it not the case that none of those claims is made out by a newspaper reporting that “the Moscow Times has reported XYZ?”

 

Your double negative is confusing me - I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

I remember being taught this concept with reference to the scripture passage about how the "tale bearer is as much to blame as the tale teller." There's no privilege associated with republication of a damaging falsehood, even if you attribute it to an original publisher.

[nfreeman]

Your double negative is confusing me - I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

I remember being taught this concept with reference to the scripture passage about how the "tale bearer is as much to blame as the tale teller." There's no privilege associated with republication of a damaging falsehood, even if you attribute it to an original publisher.

 

My double negative wasn't not clumsy.  (heh.)

 

You answered my question, although I'll admit to some skepticism notwithstanding my lack of knowledge on the issue. 

 

Perhaps I'll do a bit more research when I have time.  In the meantime, I'll leave you with this question:  if, say, Taylor Swift held a press conference at which she accused Bobby Hull of being a Nazi sympathizer, wouldn't every newspaper in the world report her accusations?  i.e. they would report not that Hull was a Nazi, but that Tay-Tay was accusing him thereof?  And would those newspapers not be shielded from libel/slander/defamation claims?

[That Aud Smell]

^

 

Your hypothetical depends on a lot of things -- factors not accounted for in the situation you've imagined (e.g., the standards associated with a "public figure," what the newspaper knew or investigated regarding what Swift said).

 

But the basic rule holds: If you're publishing something that is potentially libelous, you don't generally avoid exposure just because you're accurately quoting something that someone else said.

[bob_sauve28]

Ha ha!! Beat me too it!