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

Check my post: I explain what exactly about GBP's actions translates into inhibiting the press. If that kind of behavior (GBP's sabre rattling) is allowed to proceed, and proliferate, unchecked, then we're talking about an ugly turn of events for the freedom of the press.

Think about it...unless Montoya has GBP's financial resources, he would not be able to match his foes in court. He wouldn't have the money to beat GBP in terms of legal hour billed vs legal hour billed. He'd have to drop his case (his just and rightful defense) and let GBP win a summary judgment. Most small time journalists in this position (and boxing writers, regardless of how good they are, qualify as small time defendants) would have to admit defeat for financial reasons. If that's not interfering with freedom of the press, I don't know what is.

In terms of GBP's letter, what I find to be disturbing is the obvious intention of the lawyers. This I've explained above. Just for emphasis, I'll repeat it, and elaborate: in civil cases like this, the bullying party (i.e., vastly better financed side) doesn't intend to win a judgment. Rather, they intend to blow their opponents out of the water by spending big sums of money on discovery and litigation, knowing that, ultimately, the less well financed defendant will have to fold, regardless of the rightfulness of the defendant's legal and ethical position.

 

It's pretty apparent that you're either trolling me or you have very little understanding of the American Consitution. I'm not even trying to insult you here.

You don't what is meant by Freedom of the Press. You described a potential flaw in the legal system, not a violation of Civil Libirties. If GBP's lawsuit is baseless, Montoya can always file a motion to have it dismissed and can counter sue for legal fees. Furthermore, sending a legal threat won't even cause any of that to happen. That would only occur if a lawsuit were filed.

I'm not disputing this and this is a flaw of the legal system. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not this is a civil liberties issue, which it is not. Furthermore, GBP simply sending Montoya a legal threat doesn't cost Montoya anything and doesn't prevent him from doing anything. You're simply trying throw out different issues that have nothing to do with the original discussion. A letter that threatens legal action from GBP to Montoya is not a violation of civil liberties. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of civil liberties knows this. Furthermore, that letter means jack **** unless actual legal action is taken.

 

Trust me...I am not trolling you, and I'm not trying to throw out "red herring" arguments. But I think you are missing my point: it takes money to litigate. It takes money to pay lawyers so that they can protect defendants against "flaws in the legal system." It might cost Montoya a small fortune to have lawyers get GBP's suit dismissed, or to countersue for legal damages. That **** costs money. Big money.

GBP's threat of financial drain -- or even fiscal ruin -- is more than enough to bully most underfinanced reporters into shutting their mouths, and dropping their pens. This abuse of the legal system and of financial inequity between U.S. citizens is a direct threat to freedom of press. We're talking about principles here. We're talking about indirect threats to freedom of expression.

I'll bet that the ACLU might have recourse, on some level -- even if it's only using the media to censure the aggressor/abusers (I have to use that term for lack of more eloquent language; and I'm talking about GBP's lawyers, obviously) -- for resorting to bullying legal tactics in the first place.

Again: we're talking about principles here. If **** like what GBP's lawyers are doing (and it happens a lot, across lots of strata of American society) is allowed to continue unchecked, then American media is moving one step closer to Pravda.

 

Yet, you are about to throw one out.

And there it is. We're going in circles here.

Here's what we're not talking, a constitutional violation. And guess what? That was the entire issue. You're no longer even trying to defend that position(which is indefensible). Instead, you're throwing out red herrings left and right.

Just stop it man. Just admit that you miss spoke. It would be completely against The ACLU's principals to tell a private company that they can't threaten legal action against a writer. It would also be outside of their scope.

[/QUOTE]

No we are not, we are talking about the constitution. Ironically, in order to stop private companies/individuals from sending letters threatening legal action against another party, the government would have to violate their first ammendment rights. Again, if we follow your logic, Pacquiao violated Mayweather's 1st Ammendment rights by filing a lawsuit against him for slander.

 

2 separate beefs.

Oscar had me personally banned for satirizing him on twitter. That ban lasted a month and two denied credentials. Then I sat down with Schaefer at the GBP offices. I agreed to leave Oscar alone on twitter but would not agree, per Schaefer's request, to "write more positive stories." I write what I see not for results like that.

If you look at my body of work writing about GBP, its fairly even.

This new ban was because rather than capitulate to their legal threat, I printed it.

Neither ban was "official." No one ever said anything to me. They just removed me from their email list and started denying me credentials. very unprofessional.

 

Where is the article you were supposed to post tonight? Haven't seen it.

 

I'm not debating. I am stating my position or clarifying. They think we are debating. But we're not.

Thanks for the kind words.

 

You posted at me the point still stands, etc.

Was that meant for someone else?

 

u should be more like dan rafael. fat fug gets everything. i would die to be him. tickets, hotel suites, the best food, what a life. if i knew u had to kiss arse to get by in life i would have done it a long time ago

 

I'm not here to defeat you in argument. I'm more concerned about the deeper principles -- and ramifcations for freedom of the press -- that GBP's actions represent.

 

You jumped in the middle of a disscussion and argued a meaningless aspect of the argument.

 

Are you concerned with Freedom of speech? How do you propose stopping a private company from sending out a letter threatening legal action against another party? How do you know that GBP wasn't, or at least honestly felt that they had been defamed? Should a party that feels that they have been defamed not be allowed to notify the alleged offending party of the defamation and ask them to stop?

 

I inadvertently talked my son out of going into going into the legal profession. I asked him if he can deal with the fact there is a difference between right/wrong and legal. Last he mentioned it.

You cannot win this discussion basing it on principles. This is "legal".

 

Big Dan is responsible for what he writes in the press, though. Let's not forget that.

A lot of people rag on Dan because of his interpersonal style. Personally, even though I've found him to be off-putting, I don't think that his haughtier is unjustified. It's measured, and commensurate with what would be expected of anyone who does his job. Can't fault him too much there.

Just for the record, I haven't found Dan's writings to be especially off-key, or unreasonable. He's an excellent boxing journalist. But the guy does seem to have a weird pro-GBP bent.

The real question with Dan is, how close is his relationship with GBP? What are his motives as a journalist?

 

Like Pac avoiding any and all blood testing? Why doesn't that matter? Why are TR fighters with legit suspicion and VADA not also being investigated here detective? Lets see the VADA contracts as well. Your best bud Conte the beacon of honesty and integrity should be able to conjure something up to suit your agenda.