Can Margo sue Cotto for false allegations?

[edgarg]

Pugly

Another point that interested me. You are the very first I've seen who has pointed out that Public figures and Privater persons have different standings in slander and libel cases. Where I came from there was more latitude allowed to slander a public person, because by the very fact that he was exposing himself to the public, many, if not most, of his private affairs were fair game for critical comment and speculation. t least that's how it used to be many years ago. Only very rarely did a public figure, no matter how unjustly villified, go to court. Here, you say, it's more or less the other way around.

Another interesting point which would cause 95% of the posters here to commit suicide. In Israel they are passing through the Parliament, a law which allows an internet accuser to be sued for libel. Think....Just THINK, what that would do to all the boxing sites here. They'd all be out of business the next day.

[UglyPug]

how do you figure mayweather fits requirement 3? (if these are the real requirements). just because pacquiao never failed a drug test doesn't mean mayweather should know for certain he doesn't take PEDs. there are plenty examples of athletes in history who never failed a drug test yet were still on drugs. i'm not saying pac is on anything at all, just don't see how mayweather logically fits this requirement.

because a reasonable person in same or similar circumstances would not have made those accusations. . . there is nothing reasonable to base his claims on. . . the comments were clearly made with malicious intent as well. . . SOO much evidence against him, because the idiot kept babbling on and on and on. . .

aaramis. . . the fact that he was attempting to load his gloves against mosley, and was caught, would provide a reasonable boxer in the situation of cotto, with reason to believe he used wraps against him. . .

moreover, aaramis, magarito already has a tarnished reputation, and it's not like cotto was saying anything new. . . margarito would fail on two of the three elements. . .

[QADASHBANYAH]

cotto's been more vocal than ever recently. It seems like every time he's speaking publicly, he's accusing margarito of plastering him. He sounds almost as bad as mayweather accusing manny of being on roids.

he could but hes not a lil b!tch......

Lil b!tches sue because someone spoke ill of them....

Pac has not lost x1 endorsement.... As a matter of fact one could argue that pac has become bigger.....

[UglyPug]

Another point that interested me. You are the very first I've seen who has pointed out that Public figures and Privater persons have different standings in slander and libel cases. Where I came from there was more latitude allowed to slander a public person, because by the very fact that he was exposing himself to the public, many, if not most, of his private affairs were fair game for critical comment and speculation. t least that's how it used to be many years ago. Only very rarely did a public figure, no matter how unjustly villified, go to court. Here, you say, it's more or less the other way around.

Another interesting point which would cause 95% of the posters here to commit suicide. In Israel they are passing through the Parliament, a law which allows an internet accuser to be sued for libel. Think....Just THINK, what that would do to all the boxing sites here. They'd all be out of business the next day.

i didn't mean to make it come off like that, you are right, IT IS harder in that you have to prove the speaker made the allegations with actual malice, or "reckless disregard" to the truth. . . rather than just using the reasonable person standard. . . it's a higher burden of proof to meet.

What i meant is that it is easier to PROVE ACTUAL DAMAGES to a public figure, because it could significantly affect their livelihood. . . like pacquiao, for isntance, has clearly had his livelihood affected. . . just look at how many people look at him differently all cause of the words of some cretin.


That last point would DEFINITELY make people think twice about saying things on the internet. . . But I also think this has been addressed in US courts, and on large public blogs, or websites, people are afforded a greater degree of freedom. . . But if a new statute was passed, it could change EVERYTHING.

[UglyPug]

also edgarg - while the commission did not find margarito of INTENTIONALLY using plaster, they STILL DID PROVE that he was attempting to use something illegal in his gloves. . . cotto would not have to prove that margarito "intentionally" used plaster. . . in fact, cotto doesn't have to prove ANYTHING. . . the burden is on margarito. . .

cotto simply said that he thinks margarito used the illegal like plaster substance in his gloves - THE SAME substance that was found in the mosley fight. . . MOREOVER< since margarito is a public figure, MARGARITO WOULD HAVE TO PROVE "with clear and convincing evidence" (the standard for civil trials), that cotto made these comments with "MALICIOUS INTENT or COMPLETE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE TRUTH". . if, and only if, margarito met this malice/reckless disregard stnadard, would the burden shift to cotto . . .

finally, i would most definitely say margarito's reputation is shot to shyt. . . and NOTHING COTTO SAID MADE HIS REPUTATION WORSE. . . it's nothing that people were not already accusing him of. . . UNLIKE PAC, where NOBODY questioned his reputation until the comments mayweather made.

[Dat]

manny never failed a test
Margarito got caught with plaster in his wraps

so its not the same as mayweather accusing manny of roids

Totally agree.

[ILLuminato]

What damages did Margarito take with Cotto's so-called false accusation? A pay day with Pacquiao, and then a sold-out fight at Madison Square Garden? Gee, a jury's really gonna side with a proven cheat!

[noekin3]

Gtfoh ! ! ! .......

[ajohnz]

because a reasonable person in same or similar circumstances would not have made those accusations. . . there is nothing reasonable to base his claims on. . . the comments were clearly made with malicious intent as well. . . SOO much evidence against him, because the idiot kept babbling on and on and on. . .

aaramis. . . the fact that he was attempting to load his gloves against mosley, and was caught, would provide a reasonable boxer in the situation of cotto, with reason to believe he used wraps against him. . .

moreover, aaramis, magarito already has a tarnished reputation, and it's not like cotto was saying anything new. . . margarito would fail on two of the three elements. . .

but just becuase a reasonable person would not make the claims does not mean that mayweather knew or should have known what he said was false. if pacquiao had gone up in weight, gotten slower, had less power, and gassed out faster i could agree there was definitely no basis for the claims. however none of those are true, so...again just because he hasn't failed a test doesn't mean you can be CERTAIN he's not on anything as athletes in the past have gone without failing while being on PEDs. how do you know these claims were made with malicious intent? is any negative comment about anyone always of malicious intent? again, i do not believe pacquiao is on anything, but that doesn't mean mayweather fits your requirement 3 either.

[UglyPug]

but just becuase a reasonable person would not make the claims does not mean that mayweather knew or should have known what he said was false. if pacquiao had gone up in weight, gotten slower, had less power, and gassed out faster i could agree there was definitely no basis for the claims. however none of those are true, so...again just because he hasn't failed a test doesn't mean you can be CERTAIN he's not on anything as athletes in the past have gone without failing while being on PEDs. how do you know these claims were made with malicious intent? is any negative comment about anyone always of malicious intent? again, i do not believe pacquiao is on anything, but that doesn't mean mayweather fits your requirement 3 either.

well, of all the cases i have read with similar facts, i believe there is a parallel between the facts of this case, and the facts of those cases. . .

just look at everything floyd has said about the situation. . . it doesn't have to be malicious intent. . malicious intent OR complete and utter disregard for the truth. IMO, there is a complete and utter disregard for the truth in the way mayweather went about making his accusations. . .

but who knows? im not the judge. . . so i have no idea for sure how he will rule. . . but im just saying based on similar fact patterns, I believe Pacquiao will prevail. . .

FYI: My professor agreed. . .