Why did you delete my thread to Randy Courture? You delete my thread, but you don't ban Reyes with all the trouble, spamming, and disruption he has caused. What is Reyes paying you money or something?
I heard Kirik makes $45 for every thread created by Reyes, so you can't really blame the guy for not deleting his threads, can you?
What was your thread about?
My thread was basic. I think couture should take some legal action against Reyes for the defamatory statements he is making about him.
El Guapo, you are actually mistaken. A person can be sued for making defamatory statements depending on whether the statements were false, the issue is of public concern or not, and whether the individual spoken about is a public figure. Randy would not be seen as a public figure, nor would the issue be seen as a public concern. So he would have a pretty good case actually. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation.
There could also be an invasion of privacy suit based on use of name and face for commerical use. Since Geyes is using Randy's name to market himself financially.
But I am not a lawyer, so he should consult directly with one.
Is that thread still up?
There could also be a possible invasion of privacy suit based on placing an individual in a false light.
The right to privacy is viewed by the courts as a fundamental right in the United States. And there are many categories within that box (i.e.- right to use contraception, right to bear a child, right to marriage). Right to travel, and the right to vote are also fundamental rights. But that is more constitutional law.
For our intents and purposes, we are talking about a civil action regarding a tort claim. And there are 4 categories under that invasion of privacy claim. 2 of which Geyes has possibly violated on a regular basis on this forum.
I wonder if the UFC and KOTC can take some legal against Manny and possibly that "losers of the ring" promotion if the promotion also is in on the giving of those belts. Since they use other company names in their adverticements and make untrue claims.
Damages are presumed for cases involving slander per se:
1. Referring to one having a loathsome disease.
2. Claiming a woman is unchaste.
3. Comments referring to a person's
business/professional career/integrity.
4. Claiming one has committed a serious illegal
act.
In all other defamation cases damages must be shown. The fact that Couture's reputation affected negatively within the MMA community would constitute damages. Also, if the damage to his reputation has an effect on his ability to market himself professionally, that will also constitute damages. The fact that Randy is seen as a role model (i.e.- Captain America) such statements would inevitably have a negative effect on his professional life as well. This is all assuming that there was no truth to Reyes statements.
The elements for defamation:
1. A defamatory statement must be made
2. Of or relating to plaintiff,
3. The statement(s) has to be published (at least one other person has to hear it besides plaintiff and defendant).
4. and Damages.
There is further analysis is the issue is of public and concern and if the plaintiff is a public figure or not.
I think Randy could show damages here. But I am not a lawyer. So don't take my word for it.
Here's my thoery on early drug problems, leave it in the past. People change. Everyone's had some type of problem in the past, bringing it up is just a way of showing someone's stupidty and quilt. Who cares what happened ten, fifteen, years ago. saku drinks to much, Kerr got wasted on drugs, politicians get DUIs, hell everyone's human. Reyes is just a dic- so let him be. It brings him joy to show his ignorance, why fight him...he's high on stoopidity!
"'No shit?'
'So don't take my word for it.'
'LOL! Don't worry.'"
Listen slapnuts, I don't know why my last post was deleted, but I will try only one more time with you.
It is not just about whether his feeling got hurt. If one's reputation in the community is tarnished as a result of defamatory statements, then the court WILL view that as sufficient damages.
It is not just about whether someone's feelings were hurt. It is about the effect that the statements have on one's life and standing within the community.
In the case in point, Randy's standing in the community will inevitably be tarnished because he has always been viewed as an upstanding and correct person. He could make a legitimate claim for damages.
Now, stop trying to antagonize me.