Uh-oh.....Tim Brown & Jerry Rice got some explaining to do

[Dusty Bake Activate]

why do you think I said he probably wouldnt win?

But you still called it defamation. It's not.

 

[yseJ]

But you still called it defamation. It's not.

suing for defamation!=successfully suing for defamation.

if I sue you for something, doesnt necessarily mean you have committed that act. it means I think I should sue you. thats actually how most of america thinks

 

[Goatpoacher]

Im not sure why you posted this if I already pointed it out in the previous post.

he can try to sue but he cant prove that statement is false because you cant prove what the intentions were.

It's more complicated than that though. Let me summarize.

The U.S. and all states do not favor abrogation of free speech. We are not like those damn limeys who allow stupid slander/libel suits for practically anything. WHy do you think Lance Armstrong successfully sued a British Paper?

Because of the traditional resistance to defamation lawsuits, the requirements are pretty high. "Clear and COnvincing" evidence is a very high standard, almost as high as "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Most importantly, there must be a false statement and one that can be proven to be false.

It's bad enough that he would lose at trial, but he likely would not survive summary judgment.

 

[Walt]

One of the stupidest stories of the young year.

 

[Goatpoacher]

suing for defamation!=successfully suing for defamation.

if I sue you for something, doesnt necessarily mean you have committed that act. it means I think I should sue you. thats actually how most of america thinks

I could sue you specifically any number of random things even though I've never seen you before in my life.

THe fact that you CAN sue isn't relevant to the discussion. If we all recognize that any potential lawsuit is a loser, then why are we having this discussion?