Defamation suit lurks as likely roadblock to Pacquiao-Mayweather

Floyd wanted PAC's lawsuit be dropped as part of his demands coz he sees this as an annoying thing. People might think that Mayweathers are bunch of criminals facing lawsuits and court cases left and right. Mayweathers are law abiding citizens. They're good citizens with no criminal records. :rofl

 

Why's that?

 

It's back from a case in the 60's. Public figures have to prove that that the defendant made the statements with malice intent. That's why it's so hard for public figures to win these cases.

Also, don't think of public figures as just celebrities, it can people people with a lot less recognition.

 

It's clear to me now that you spend hours per day sniffing glue.

 

Because "fame" and "celebrity" are what generate your income.

"I want to make a living off of public opinion and sentiment, but I only want that opinion to be positive."

That is just silly.

 

Thanks for the explanation, I don't agree with the law though. I do not think the standards should be different. There's a difference between negative opinion and my definition of slander.

 

I am no lawyer man so don't take anything I say as "right". The last thing I think is that the law "makes sense".

Well I think you are believing the things Pac fans are saying without actually looking at the vids. I haven't heard FMJ say ANYTHING about Pac directly. Even Mayweather's father started all discussions with, "I think, and this is just my opinion now, but..."

That isn't slander.

 

No problem. I'm not a lawyer either and I'm not necassarily talking about Floyd and Pac. I'm just saying the way the law is being presented, on the thread that is, is Pac. and Floyd for that matter, have less rights on this subject than if they were not famous. That's where the law rubs me wrong.

 

Read footballfan's explanation, it's on the money. The higher standards does stem from a 1960's case. I forget the exact details, but I know a newspaper from up North was reporting on some sort of racial issue down south. The reporter got some menial detail about the local sheriff incorrect and was sued for defamation of character. Public figures and officers and figures are wrote and talked about all the time. If they were held to the same standards are regular people(in regards to defamation of character suits), media outlets would be open to too many lawsuits.

 

That's sounds about right.

Just think about it logically as reg said public figures are discussed so much providing many opportunities to be sued. News outlets would self censor to avoid suits. Think about how that would change everything.

 

I understand the rational, but It's double standard and I don't agree with it. How did they get around equal protection under the law? Perhaps the standards for non-public figures should be changed to match those in the public.

 

Common sense says Floyd is a slanderous *****. So the law will see it the other way.

 

It's a constitutional privilege.

Think about all that is published through various media outlets. People start suing for things that are published they don't like about them. These outlets have to prove what they said is true. Think about the burden that places on outlets and some statements simply can't be proven to be true. As I said before media outlets will start to self-censor.

Private citizens are not of public interest and aren't the topic of public discourse. One justice wrote something along the lines that public issues should be discussed openly and freely. You can't do this with the fear of having to prove every statement to be true.

 

Then equalize the standards, what's law for celebrities should be law for non-celebrities. If somone says something about a celebrity and then says the same about me, why should I have greater legal rights to sue? Lower my rights to that of the celebrity and self-censorship of the press would be a moot point. I also consider that May and Pac. are private citizens, not public figures, at least not as defined in precendent case/cases stated on the thread. Enlighten me if there is a similar precedent case to Pac. vs. May.

 

Pac will win his suit. Void, Jr. and Void, Sr. are liars. There is zero proof that Pac is a druggie like Void claims. Where is the proof Void?