PAC MAN may drop lawsuit against MONEY MAY...

What damages? he sold 750k PPV... his case is dead without damages

 

even you just discredit the "cause" for pacquiao having a tarnished reputation

if you cannot see the lack of logic in that, i feel sorry for you

 

I suggest that you read the article first.

 

all of this bull**** to duck a few tests..amazing..

 

They did not hurt his reputation as his last "event" was a "success"... you need damages and malice.

Malice is very hard to establish... never did they actually say it is a fact...it was I believe and I know.

If anything the only remotely legit claim he has is against Uncle Roger and he will file BK.

Realistically this will never be settled by court...

Look up the Jerry Falwell case

"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions.

This content is protected

.

This content is protected

Although false statements lack inherent value, the "breathing space" that freedom of expression requires in order to flourish must tolerate occasional false statements, lest there be an intolerable chilling effect on speech that does have constitutional value.
To be sure, in other areas of the law, the specific intent to inflict emotional harm enjoys no protection. But with respect to speech concerning public figures, penalizing the intent to inflict emotional harm, without also requiring that the speech that inflicts that harm to be false, would subject political cartoonists and other satirists to large damage awards. "The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events – an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal". This was certainly true of the cartoons of Thomas Nast, who skewered Boss Tweed in the pages of Harper's Weekly. From a historical perspective, political discourse would have been considerably poorer without such cartoons.
Even if Nast's cartoons were not particularly offensive, Falwell argued that the Hustler parody advertisement in this case was so "outrageous" as to take it outside the scope of First Amendment protection. But "outrageous" is an inherently subjective term, susceptible to the personal taste of the jury empaneled to decide a case. Such a standard "runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience". So long as the speech at issue is not "obscene" and thus not subject to First Amendment protection, it should be subject to the actual-malice standard when it concerns public figures.
Clearly, Falwell was a public figure for purposes of First Amendment law. Because the district court found in favor of Flynt on the libel charge, there was no dispute as to whether the parody could be understood as describing actual facts about Falwell or events in which he participated. Accordingly, because the parody did not make false statements that were implied to be true, it could not be the subject of damages under the New York Times actual-malice standard. The Court thus reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit."

 

ricardinho's right.

The Mayweathers have zero to fear from this case legally. It's a PR move, and it could well backfire.

The only weight it carries is that the Mayweather side may not have the inclination or want to spend the money seeing the case through to its conclusion. They might be tempted to squash it if only to save all the hassle.

If their lawyers are good enough it probably won't even get to the courtroom, though. There are lots of precedents for this. Not only is there is a free speech defence, but you have to show damage (Manny's last PPV pulling over 700K won't help him argue damage here) and you also have to show the Mayweathers knowingly spread lies; there's an 'opinion' defence, too.

It's been bull**** from the start.

 

This isn't political debate though. And making statements about the professional life of someone definitely causes a financial injury/blow to their reputation.

For example, if I start hanging around outside a doctor's office waving signs and screaming that he's a quack who never actually got his medical license or degree, then make public interviews talking about it, make statements about it online, to friends and family, etc, then the rumor caused definitely harm the doctor's practice by making people less willing to go to him.

Its been a long time since I reviewed business law, but regardless of 1st amendment rights, if I make those statements with no proof to back them up, I can be sued by the doctor, have a court order taken out against me, maybe charged with harassment depending on the situation.

At some point in a case like this the side making the claims about the person has to have some sort of reasonable proof or reason to believe what they said. If they don't... well, then things get interesting.

PS The case against Mayweather is still going on? I know the one with Oscar and Golden Boy is, but I thought there was some sort of settlement with Mayweather awhile back. Or did I just totally misremember that? :huh

 

WHat damages has he suffered as far as loss of income? None whatsoever.

A Doctor is not a public figure necessarily and is a weak analogy.

Since Pac is a public figure and a politician... malice needs to be proven. Malice is incredibly hard to establish.

Its apparent that your extent of legal knowledge is at most a semester of business law.

I am afraid if the lawsuit proceeds it will only hurt Pac's reputation.

By the way Golden Boy Has the better Attorney.

In 2002, Mr. Burstein, who had never tried a defamation case previously, won a substantial six figure verdict for a public figure. In a post-trial decision, the federal Trial Judge who presided over the case observed, with respect to a key issue in the case, "Burstein seized on the issue masterfully. Burstein was even more effective during his summation."

In 2008, Burstein secured the dismissal of libel claims brought against his client Donny Deutsch.

Upon the jury's asking for "a calculator and a magnifying glass" during its deliberations, a $7.5 million settlement for Terry Norris in his case against Don King Productions, Inc. [Subsequently, Don King Productions replaced its long-time primary litigation counsel with Mr. Burstein and his firm.]

 

Of course it is. You're most likely a Pac fan so you're allowing your loyalty to blind you from seeing it. Celebrities get taunted on talk shows all the time. Some tabloids even go as far as using derogatory terms such as "crackhead" or "drug user." Yet most celebs don't pay attention to that crap because it's petty and it's not worth the time, effort, and money spent on court sessions. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone disrespectful behavior. But in Pac's case it doesn't make sense to take his problem to court when he can just settle it in the ring and get paid millions for it!! This isn't even arguable.

24 days is not good enough. Let's see him go through it without a window because if Floyd and Shane can do it I don't see why he can't. Floyd was flexible enough to give him a 14 day window but he still would not accept. According to him 14 days is still close to the fight. Lmao. If you need that much time to recover from one simple blood test you are either guilty of using drugs or mentally handicapped.

There isn't a rule that says Floyd can't have Pac go through extra testing. So he isn't doing anything illegal or unreasonable for that matter. If Team Pac didn't want Floyd to establish any rules then they shouldn't have dropped their stipulations on him. He was just trying to even out the playing field.

 

:good

 

He can at least argue about it. It's a weak argument, but it can be made, and slander law goes all over the place at times. I remember looking at a couple of cases and you can find courts ruling in completely opposite ways in very similar cases.

Yeah, in a lot of ways it is a weak analogy. It was just the first thing I could think of offhand. Still, I think the 1st amendment section was more geared towards protecting speech against political figures. Obviously things like tabloids make up stories about celebs all the time... but then, sometimes they gets sued and lose too.

[/quote]Since Pac is a public figure and a politician... malice needs to be proven. Malice is incredibly hard to establish.[/quote]

Very true. And even when there malice it's sometimes let go under a host of technicalities, privilege, opinion, etc.

Wrong! Three semesters. Y'know, from about 5 years ago.

Most likely. Ultimately I doubt this does anything for Pac beside try to save some face, maybe force a private settlement so his PR people can turn around and say "Look the other side wanted to settle this case, so it clearly wasn't baseless" etc.

Those who are on Pac's side will still be there, those who already believe he's taking PEDs still will, but one thing is for sure: if he does fight either Mayweather or Mosley, everyone is going to be interested in seeing blood testing done. Even if it's an arrangement where it ends a week before the fight or something.

 

Wanderer I like your honesty and candor...Pac should just take the tests

 

that's my whole point


the poster calls mayweather sr. a crack head (thus showing he has no credibility, and everyone knows he has no credibility), yet tries to use him as proof pac's rep was damaged

 

Pac fans cry foul play over the "attempt to tarnish Pac's reputation" yet they continuously insult with terms such as "Gayweather", "coward", "crackhead"

Isn't that a form of defamation of character? Sounds like a clear case of hypocrisy.

The funny thing is Floyd just shrugs stuff like that off easily. Why can't Pac do the same? If you know you're clean and you have loyal fans following you then stuff like that shouldn't be a problem. If someone at work accused me of using drugs I'd just fall to the floor laughing.

 

the thread title basically says the opposite of the article.

expect the haters to buy into it.