Pac vs Mayweather Finally Happening!!!

The bold is where Pacquiao is going to have the biggest problem.

How do you prove there were "damages," and how would you quantify how much when: he is the #1 P4P fighter in the world by rankings, hugely popular both by fans and media, had several multi-million dollar fights, high profile sponsors, and recently got elected as a senator? Other than "Internet Forums," in what way has he been damaged financially? I just can't see it. As I said to another person: You can't sue somebody for being an idiot or ignorant.

It's going to be hard to prove that Mr. Pacquiao has received financial damage when the guy has probably made millions upon millions of dollars despite the comments that have been made. There is also noway to prove that the individuals knew their statements to be false when they made them. Even idiots are entitled to their opinions in this country, and it is protected under Free Speech.

 

Enjoy this battle guys, this is the only Pac vs Mayweather you will ever see.

 

you have everything backwards lol

1. If it is proved that Floyd did say things alleging that Pac used PEDs, then it would be Floyd's burden to prove that what he said were facts. Pacquiao only has to allege in his complaint that the statements were lies, and that he has passed all drug tests. Floyd would have to dig some serious **** to prove that he is telling the truth about Pac's ped use. otherwise the court would conclude that floyd did defame pac's character. Seriously, the only way floyd gets away with this is if he can twist his statements and say that he didn't call Pacquaio a Ped user.

2. Malice and bad faith are not impossible to prove, otherwise those concepts wouldn't have been invented at all. Just by looking at the nature of the statements and at the context when they were made, malice will be found. in this instance, GBP and floyd's camp repeatedly and even tauntingly made the accusatory statements, Pac's lawyer would have a ****en field day.

3. When someone defamed your character, there is and there should be harm involved unless the one defamed lives in a cave and does not socialize with any human being at all. In some jurisdictions,the least you could get is moral damages for your besmirched reputation and all the sleepless nights you suffered while floyd and co. were on espn and youtube calling you a cheater. When malice is proved, exemplary damages would be given as well, but the real deal is the actual damages that a million-dollar worth endorser and celebrity suffered for a defamed name. Pac would be happy taking away floyd's money when this suit is done

 

man you have a ****ed up understanding of the law. The free speech clause does not protect lies and falsehood. When you spread rumours about your neighbor being a pedo and sex pervert, you better be ready to prove that you are saying the truth. You cannot hide behind the free speech clause lmao.

can you imagine the repercussions of what you understand the law to be? I'm accusing you of being a pedo and i'm telling the truth until you could prove otherwise lol. Can you imagine if that same principle applies in criminal trials? You are guilty until you are proven innocent. lol, ****ed up world.

 

**** thats a 10-8 round for Pac and a KO coming fk big mouth May sr and all the other **** talking is now come uo to the ears.. they should of shut their big fk mouth and taken the fight got their ass kicked and walked away with 50 mil .. now what , stupid fk "s

 

Bold says you obviously have a ****ed up understanding of the law in question. (And I only said you have a ****ed up understanding of the law since you decided to use that phrase for me, WHEN YOU ARE WRONG)

Your neighbor does not qualify as a "public figure." Your example is not at all related to the Pacquiao scenario.

The law is different for famous people. That is a fact of life. If you do not want to get hate on by random people, don't be in the public view. Simple.

 

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), refined the doctrine in New York Times vs Sullivan regarding public figures. The case differentiated between public figures who are public officials and public figures who are private individuals


" public figures who are not public officials may recover damages for libel stemming from false reports based on "highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers."

 

1) Wrong. Please read the law. Burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove they KNEW they were making false statements. People are entitled to their opinions.

2) Doesn't matter how often they said it. You have to "prove" that they did it for the "sole purpose of harming Mr. Pacquiao." Just having a "****ed up opinion" does not qualify.

3) Utter crap. Sleepless nights? Really? He is a public figure and hate comes with the territory. If you can't prove you have suffered damages in MONETARY TERMS, how do you justify your lawsuit? You can't.... What does he say? I've made a ton of money and got elected as a politician since these comments were made? Kind of hard to prove harm.

 

Keep reading. They expanded it to include celebrities and other public figures. It is NOT just politicians anymore and it hasn't been that way for quite some time.

I know you guys are desperately trying to be right here, but you are wrong. Seriously.

 

And you're right:yep

Let the courts decide it.