but somethings are so nasty to say that if you say them, the person who sues doesn't have to prove she's suffered financial loss. the law assumes that certain words are inherently injurious. and such words are called slander per se. what words? let's ask dancingwithlawyers:
"under common law, slander traditionally was actionable per se if it fell into one of four categories:
- imputations of criminal conduct
- allegations injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession
- imputations of loathsome disease
- imputations of unchastity in a woman"
well, you might ask, could calling a young successful female athlete a "nappy headed ho" constitute an "imputation of unchastity?" especially in this day and hip hop age?"unchastity" is essentially meaningless as an accusation agains an adult woman, but probably still grounds for legal action when made against a teenage girl."hmm.
There seems to be little doubt. Especially if you couple "unchastity" with the fact that he said they were "Hos", possibly implying that they were in the worlds oldest (and mostly illegal) profession which would, likely, count as "imputations of criminal conduct." It depends on how you define "Ho".
I am not a lawyer, so I am just guessing here. Also, I am not those Rutgers' students, so I can't say whether they will try and go to court or not. But they probably could if they wanted to. And I wouldn't blame them if they did.