In case you missed it, Discovery Channel's show 'American Casino' had one episode where a player was backed off from both the blackjack tables and forbidden from playing any tournaments at Green Valley Ranch. Although the player's face was obscured, it was quite apparent to anyone who knew him that the player in question was JoeP, one of the regulars on the board here. It is my understanding that Joe did not sign any release permitting the use of his images on the show. (Please correct me if I'm wrong Joe.) Being backed off on national TV was one thing, but here's where they really overstepped the boundaries in my opinion... Prior to the back-off, they showed some discussion between management in the back office. In that footage, one of the executives at GVR described Joe as a cheat, and only later qualifies that statement by saying he's a card counter. Joe is still deciding on his options, and in another thread here, he recommended a poll of those who've seen the show to help him decide whether to pursue legal action. So, here you go.
go get em joe! I have only been around blackjack for about 7 months, but am very competitive and I don't consider myself a counter, but what those jerks did by telling each other that you were a cheater and then cardcounter in the same sentence in the office when one of them asked of what you had done was totally uncalled for. They should of let you play on, it is a tournament after all now and the best players should be allowed to play. I live in florida, but am thinking of moving out to vegas and if I ever go to green valley I'm going to sock it to them at the tables. Also, myself and probably other viewers would like to know if the show has caused you of being barred at other casinos?
it sucks, but... Despite the obvious nature of their shameful disparagement of your character, there are two reasons why you will never be able to prove this is libel in a court of law. Assuming they did not clearly speak your full name in the broadcast of the show, the 'face blur' effect is enough to protect the casino & the show's producers/ the network/ etc from any prosecution. Its a reality out here in TV land that shows that involve the general public (or people in public who may not want to be photographed) often film people either in the background or, in this case, a person who becomes part of the story. But through a very secure & time-tested & court-upheld method, the practice of face-blurring has already been proven to be an acceptable identity-obscurer, despite the fact that anyone watching who already knows the person can clearly tell who it is. That's because it still protects the person's identity from the general public, and therefore a high enough degree of anonymity is still assured. You see this effect all the time on shows like 'Cops' & many dating & reality TV shows where the main characters are running down public streets, etc. But the second reason why you really have no basis for a libel case here is that producers of these types of shows have gotten savvy over the past 10 years of the reality-TV boom and an ugly precedent has been set for those wanting to truly remain anonymous in a public setting. Forget signing a model release/authorization form, since this show was filmed on a 'closed set' ie, enclosed inside the grounds of the GVR, i am sure the show's producers had some sort of notice on all the entryways to this private property stating something to the effect of: 'A television show is being filmed here today. Your presence inside the GVR grants permission to the GVR, the Discovery Network, and the show's producers to use your likeness, voice, image, etc etc etc blah blah blah' -- you get the point. This notice may not have been particularly noticeable to the casual passer-by, but i am sure one would have been present. it simply would be too tough to get individual releases from the countless patrons involved in every shot, so a blanket release like this accomplishes the same thing. Your very presence on their property that day grants them your permission. Now, if you had taken a loud argument out to the street with the GVR management, that would have been a different story. Ultimately, you're actually very lucky that they blurred your face at all. Simply by being there, you gave your consent to be filmed -- they could have a case for not even needing the blur. But with such obvious libel occurring, i am sure the show's producers decided to err on the side of caution & go the extra step 'just in case.' After all, if you damn card counters are already trying to cheat the house, you'll probably try to sue them too! I know I'm being very discouraging here, but I'm just trying to be realistic with you based on my knowledge of the entertainment industry. Obviously, it wouldn't hurt to check with an actual personal-injury lawyer, if for no other reason than it will not cost you anything! And if you find a scrappy attorney who wants to go the distance & really set a new precedent/overturn old ones for this type of case, then i stand behind you 100%. Personally i am enraged that this type of stereotyping & character defamation still exists in our now very gambling-savvy culture. Why people still equate 'using your brain' with 'cheating' is a lamentable mystery to me, and perhaps most horrifying is the Orwellian way in which the perpetrators of these falsehoods are able to rally the general public to their cause against the evil card-counting witches who find themselves time and again burned at the stake. -hollywood dave.
Discouraging post, but undoubtably accurate. Thanks for the insights Hollywood. Uh, can I change my vote?
Joe P case against Discovery Channel & GVR Hollywood I understand what you are saying about their right to film at GVR and your presence there is your responisibilty.But what you are not seeing is they went way beyond showing my image they recorded the whole scene of them backing me off and did nothing to alter my voice.Their shot of me from the side made no attempt to cover my face.I have had people who i never met before in my life come up to me and say i saw you on that casino show were they called you a CHEAT.And thats my next point in Nevada cheating is a FELONY so they accused me of being a FELON thats were they crossed the line.You want to call me a card counter or an advantage player or a prof.Tournament player thats open for discussion but that can not call me a cheat on National TV.Someone has to stand up to them they just go to far.I may never play another tourn.in this town but I'm not going to stand pat while they run over me.
Gvr In resonse to the other post as has this broadcast affected you at any other casinos.The answer is YES i was told the other night i was no longer allowed to play at their tables or Tourn.When i asked why the shift mgr. told me i should stay off TV............Do you hear CHEATER i do !!!!
Hollywood you are correct, but On TV they can and do protect themselves, like on cops they blurr out a face and maybe voices as well. But they also state that the person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Joe was not convicted, Matt Sacaa just came right out and said on national TV that Joe was a cheater "AND" a card counter not that he was a cheater as a card counter. They cross the boundries between what they can and can't do. Joe has a very good case, but I would go after Matt Sacaa (meation GVR in any lawsuit) but go after Matt personally after all it came out of his mouth.
May have a case It's best to jump on these things as soon as possible so that any necessary surveillance video can be subpoenaed before it's destroyed. Why not contact Bob N. and see what he has to say. It sounds like the kind of case he would enjoy.
Which is worse ? A counter or a person that marks the cards ? In the next show they had a woman that was marking the cards and they knew it. They did NOT back her off. They made a big deal out of taking the cards off the table and looking at them, until she left. The PB even said, we don't like to back anyone off. Yea, right. If you could find an lawyer that would take the case on a percentage, go for it.
Sounds like you've got some legitimate grey areas here -- if your face was clearly recognizable from the side, and you have the witnesses to prove it, then an ambitious lawyer may be able to run with the libel charge. Again, Joe, i know i've been particularly discouraging, but believe me when i say i sympathize with you 100% -- what happened is total bullshit, and if i were you i would want to fight it as well. It's just that you will find that these TV networks are so absolutely insulated against any and all forms of prosecution, these releases are really so detailed against all of these types of attacks that they give them blanket protection to do whatever they want. So your best recourse may be going after the individual himself who made the statements, or the corporation backing him, not the show. Ultimately, it will not cost you anything, any personal injury lawyer you can interest in the case will take it on for 30-40% of the settlement. Good luck to you & please keep us posted...
GVR is not above the law..... Even if just by walking into GVR you are "agreeing" to be on film, you are not agreeing to be slandered. It doesn't matter that your face was blurred (especially if it was viewable at one point) do they have the right to do or say whatever they want just because you are on their property? If Matt Sacca made inapropriate comments (ex. sexual harrasment) to or about an employee, would she not be able to sue simply because she is on a tv show and signed a release? I think not. Releasing your image for television is not free reign for them to label you a cheater or make disparaging comments about your character. Matt may think that he is a postion to lord it over people, and he may have the right to ban people from the property, but character assisnation is another thing. The general public probably view this ahole as an authority on the matter, and since the show is edited to make it interesting, it may seem beliveable. I gamble at GVR a lot more than I should, and if anyone cheats, it is that freaking casino. I have also never seen the fights that they act like happen all the time. A lot of the content seems staged. I say...Go for it JoeP!!!!
Truth is never slander For Joe to win his case, he would have to prove that the truth was not stated. A casino defendant would undoubtedly draw from their histories of shared casino comment systems, defining absolute video evidence etc. in order to defend their position. Does Joe really want to encourage ALL his laundry aired in public? First Law Of Casino Advantage Players = YOU MUST NOT BE EXPOSED! Any discreet casino gambler who has shared the planet with Joe during his 53 years of gracing us with his presence could find him an absolute case study in how NOT to behave in a casino environment. The only thing he lacks is functioning bells and/or whistles in terms of needlessly drawing attention. Joe would be much better served in finally learning his long-overdue lesson that Nevada casinos are private businesses that can deny patrons at whim, so why aggravate them into doing it?
Respectfully disagree I don’t think there is one of us who wouldn’t be up set being called a cheater or accused of cheating. Joe was call on national TV "A Cheater"; I think it is a little late for him to worry about the whims of the casinos. You mention "airing his dirty laundry", I don't know if Joe has any, but even if he does that is his business and I feel should not be posted on this or any other site unless it affects us. I have been playing tournaments against Joe for now on seven years and never had a problem with him nor seen him cause any problems at any casino (other then ask to speed up his play on occasion...lol). I find Joe entertaining and VERY knowledgeable in tournament play. He has never been anything but nice to both my wife and I on our trips to Vegas. Several times I personally have tried to get him and other advantage players into tournaments that have barred them. I would much rather play against Joe and other advantage tournament players then some of the rabbits that I have found myself playing against lately. If I were in Joes's shoes I would look into a possible lawsuit, at least see what an attorney has to say. I can't stand a cheater and think they should be barred from all tournaments and marked as one all around town so they are not given another chance to cheat again. But I hear of players being called cheaters a lot lately and it is usually because the ones saying it can’t accept the fact they got beat by anyone unless they were cheated. They have no proof just bitterness because their sore losers.
