The "All Things Mayweather/Pacquiao" Express!!!!!!

I know that they have issued press pass acceptance letters to writers in the past, then blocked those individuals at the door on fight night. They offer no explanation for these situations.

Many people would excuse these instances off as disorganization by GBP, but I wonder.

 

Good. That means you have won the first skirmish, in that you've established you have the legal firepower to not have to cower before GBP.

 

I'm not making any sense to you because you don't understand how the constitution works. The constitution outlines what the government can and can't do. Freedom of the press is part of the First Ammendment. The First Ammendment is part of the bill of rights. The Bill of Rights outlines what the government can and can't do to their citizens. So you have to ask yourself, is this situation an example of the government trying to limit Montoya in any way, shape or form? The answer is no because the government is not involved in this case. If the government is not involved, then there are no constitutional rights being violated.

No we are not talking about the freedom of the press. You need read up on the consitution.

 

You're full of ****. If a well-financed organization such as GBP uses the threat of legal action (including lawsuits) to inhibit the press, then it becomes a matter of law. The ACLU isn't involved only in those cases in which the state has (possibly or probably) infringed on a citizen's rights. It is involved also in conflicts or abuses perpetuated by non-state entities, against each other, within the U.S.

 

It's obviously a legal matter, just not a constitutional matter. If you think it is, then you are woefully ignorant on the matter.

You do know that the ACLU stands for the American Civil Liberties Union, don't you? Do you know what is meant by Civil Liberties?

 

In the past, the ACLU has filed lawsuits in cases where entities have committed freedom of the press violations. Here's one example:
http://www.aclu-tn.org/release062911.html

Arguably, the ACLU was involved in the above-mentioned case only because it involved government (a city) abusing its power in a conflict with the press. But still, the principle stands: freedom of the press must not be usurped or undermined.

Possibly, in the case of Montoya, the ACLU would say, "let the matter go to the courts, and let the judges order GBP's legal team to stroke themselves. If the judges fail to do this, then we, the ACLU, will step in and initiate suit to school the offenders."

But still, you get my drift....freedom of the press is a civil liberty. It's not to be stifled or stamped out by bullies. And yes..."bullying" is precisely what GBP's lawyers are doing, because their intent, obviously, is to bury their defendant (presumably underfinanced) in expensive -- possibly interminable -- litigation.

 

Think so too!!!!

I really don't think GBP would actually sue you, otherwise it would open a floodgate of "gates' similar to watergate.

Just do whatever you are doing!!!!!:hi::hi::hi:

But I never actually envisioned you debating with idiots! It is not worth it. It is just going to their level, which believe me, is way beyond low.

 

You know no **** when it comes to scoring. STFU.

 

You don't know what you're talking about and don't understand the breadth of the constitution.

 

Back out of this. I'm interested in what Reg has to say. I'll call on you when I give you permission to speak.

 

You're still not getting that Freedom of the Press only comes into play when the government attempts to prohibit it. Non government entities have no legal right to enforce any sort of laws. GBP threating Montoya with legal action is just that, a threat. Montoya can only be forced to stop doing anything if the government rules that he must stop. By your logic, Pacquiao filing a defemation of character lawsuit against Mayweather is a violation of Mayweather's Freedom of Speech.

If the matter went to court and the courts ruled in favor of GBP, and the ACLU felt that the ruling was unconstitutional, then they would file a lawsuit against the government, not GBP. Fact of the matter is, the ACLU has no reason to get involved unless it becomes a civil liberties issue. A private company sending a legal threat to a writer is in no way a civil liberties issue.

No one is disputing that.

Here is where you're getting confused. I want you to explain to me how Montoya receiving a legal threat from GBP is a violation of any civil liberties. What about that letter, on its own, prevents Montoya from doing anything? GBP has every right to threaten Montoya with legal action. If Montoya doesn't think he's doing anything wrong, nothing is stopping him from continuing to do whatever he was doing.

 

You don't worry because your a dogs ass and this is the short moment in time the sun is shining on you. Back to the dark recesses of the internet with you. Back to your day job.

 

I'll insert myself into any conversation I'm qualified to speak on. I'll allow Reg to commence the schooling.

 

But you ain't got not qualifications to participate in this conversation. If I gotta, I will put you on ignore, son...

 

Did you not get the memo?

TAGTEAM - idiocy in numbers?