Defamation suit lurks as likely roadblock to Pacquiao-Mayweather

When they step over the line they do get sued. US laws are a bit broader but it does happen.

This, or its at least concerning enough.

 

I know it happens occasionally, but pretty rare. Like I said, they have to prove that the defendents stated something that they knew wasn't true.

For this case, I don't see how it can be proven that the May's knew pac wasn't using.




"This is a much higher burden of proof for a public figure plaintiff .... if a statement is determined to be an opinion, then it cannot be the subject of a defamation suit"

http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html

 

Nah, it's just inconvenient and expensive.

 

this post = the recipient being owned:rofl:rofl

u schooled em .:good

 

The lawsuit is just a bargaining chip. It's obvious. You lames are blind if you don't see that. It's to keep the Mayweather's in check everytime they act out of pocket. Everytime they demand anything above 50/50 or random drug testing past the 3 week window boom let the bitches rejoice at the fact that they are dropping it for staying in their lane and not being a picky Polly about it.

 

You do realize Pac is not a public officer or figure.

 

Pacquiao would fall under the category of a public figure. Pretty much every celebrity does.

 

I think alot of the trial will rest on whether or not Pac can be considered a public figure. Although celebreties are public figures, relative to another celebrity its quite possible that a judge would consider that they are not.


Here's what I found about Libels

Libel and Slander

Two torts that involve the communication of false information about a person, a group, or an entity such as a corporation. Libel is any

This content is protected

that can be seen, such as a writing, printing, effigy, movie, or statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard.

Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity.

This content is protected

The laws governing these torts are identical.

To recover in a libel or slander suit,

This content is protected

To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.

Defamatory matter is published when it is communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. This can be done in several different ways. The defendant might loudly accuse the plaintiff of something in a public place where others are present, or make defamatory statements about the plaintiff in a newsletter or an on-line bulletin board. The defamation need not be printed or distributed. However, if the defendant does not intend it to be conveyed to anyone other than the plaintiff, and conveys it in a manner that ordinarily would prevent others from seeing or hearing it, the requirement of publication has not been satisfied even if a third party inadvertently overhears or witnesses the communication.

 

I rather disagree, but we'll find out when it happens.

 

public figure n. in the law of defamation (libel and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star,

This content is protected

. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice (hate). (See:

This content is protected

,

This content is protected

,

This content is protected

)

 

That's the beauty of the Internet. Just google public figure. You'll see if I'm right.

 

Doesnt seem like it...Sr has said more after the suit than before...only Pac fans believe it is doing anything...

 

PAC IS A KNOWN CELEBRITY..MAYBE NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER BUT CERTAINLY A PUBLIC FIGURE:good HOW COULD HE NOT BE A PUBLIC FIGURE? :think

HE IS A PUBLIC FIGURE JUST AS ANY SUPER STAR ATHLETE IS MAN

 

The law extends to celebrities and ANY public figures. Not just elected officials.

If you don't want random people to have opinions about you, don't live in the public eye. The price of fame. :deal

 

I think Pac can make a case that

1) Pac being a public figure has no bearing regarding these statements, since relative to the Mayweather camp Pac is rather a potential opponent than a sports hero.

2) the Mayweathers did in fact make those statements with the intention to defame Pacquiao with malice (much harder to prove than 1)


I'm sure there's a precedent for a politician suing another politician for slander. Would be interesting to refer to such a case