Is there some kind of exception when it's something that we were gonna know about regardless? It's not like it's exposing that he has some kind of disease or illness. I mean, unless he's gonna go around wearing some kind of special glove, or hide his hand for every second of the rest of his life, we were gonna know this as soon as he stepped out of the hospital.
I'm seriously asking, are you ok?
A broadcaster cannot be held civilly liable for publishing documents or tapes illegally procured by a third-party.
Are there similarities and uncomfortable parallels? Sure. But let's not undersell the ungodly horror of slavery (which still goes on in much of the world) to a bunch of fukking millionaires and hundred-thousand-dollaraires that signed on the dotted line.

Normally they say "allegedly" to cover their butts if they are wrong but not this time. They are reporting all of this amputation as fact.Espn gives no fukk. Was running it on there ticker as breaking news
That sounds like bs. Regardless I'm sure he didn't waive his rights for the hospital to leak his shyt to the media.
Why would they ? Or they just mean someone close to him did it not like jpp wanted it outThe Papers are saying it was leaked from his camp
Why would they ? Or they just mean someone close to him did it not like jpp wanted it out
According to a source, the information about Pierre-Paul’s condition may have been released by his camp; otherwise, issues of medical privacy and HIPAA Privacy Rule violations are at play.
Jackson Memorial Hospital cited HIPAA laws as to why Giants VP of medical services Ronnie Barnes could not see Pierre-Paul and said that no statements would be made at the family’s request.
To put word out that's he going to be ok
http://m.nydailynews.com/sports/foo...iami-meet-jason-pierre-paul-article-1.2285585
his camp wouldnt have access to the complete operating room schedule eitherThat's not true because the patient does not have access to his own chart until he's discharged.