Phil suing over some anonymous yoyo

[topspin4hand]

Most celebs don't go this route b/c the news of the lawsuit alone generates more publicity than the comments buried at the bottom of online stories.  Case in point, I didn't even know about this until reading some stories with the allegations in the lawsuit. Even thought Phil is a public figure, with a tougher burden to win a defamation lawsuit, from what I've seen, this fogroller internet tough guy has crossed the legal line and is apparently about to be outed.  I hope Phil's legal team takes it all the way to a judgment and goes after the guy's bank account and future wages. This was way beyond calling Phil "fat."

[bplewis24]

Having actually read the short blurb of an article, if Phil were to get any money out of this guy, it only makes more of a mockery of the judicial system than it already is.

Brandon

[Zwick]

I mean something like murder or raping someone or something like this, not smoking weed or driving 20 mph too fast.

Originally Posted by Yukari

I didn't know there was degree to illegality.

I thought it was either legal or illegal, period.

[AmazingWhacker]

So, curiousity got the better of me so I went over to Yahoo's Devil Ball Golf Blog.  There is a post there from Nov 10 on Mickelson making the Hall of Fame and this Fogroller person made about a hundred comments.

He accuses Phil of all kinds of stuff:

secret child in Ohio

wife cheating with Michael Jordan

paying off the media to cover up his gambling and debauchery

Something about Titleist and Callaway that I couldn't quite follow

Intentionally . . uhmm . .passing gas while other players are trying to tee off.

Missing a lot of short putts

Now, that last one really stings, but the rest sounds pretty insane.  If it doesn't sound insane just by itself, put it in the context of a hundred posts by a single person using multiple accounts within a few hours.

Maybe Phil should find out who this person is so they can be watched by police.  I still don't think he needs to be worried about libel - which would require somebody to actually believe this crazy-ass person.

[Yukari]

The only "grounds" Phil has is libel because it deals with supposedly untrue facts written about Phil.  I don't know where you get the notion that the grounds for Phil's suit also include "undo stress..."  Basically, Phil's got to prove that the writer knew the facts were untrue and still wrote about it.  Of course, with the law suit, the writer can seek all kinds of information from Phil to defend this libel suit.  If Phil's got any skeletons in the closet, the writer can potentially discover that during the discovery stage and make them public.

Maybe that is what the writer is looking for-a reason to allow him to dig deeper into Phil's personal life--legally.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

You don't know lawyers very well.  First, Phil's not looking to make money he's using the threat to get them to stop.  As for grounds, his wife is a cancer survivor, he is dealing with Psoriatic arthritis, lawyer will make the case that severe undo stress weakens the immunity system and makes them more susceptible to relapses.  There's the impact of the rumors on his kids and family, believe me it doesn't take much for a lawyer to find grounds to sue.

[brocks]

So, curiousity got the better of me so I went over to Yahoo's Devil Ball Golf Blog.  There is a post there from Nov 10 on Mickelson making the Hall of Fame and this Fogroller person made about a hundred comments. He accuses Phil of all kinds of stuff: secret child in Ohio wife cheating with Michael Jordan paying off the media to cover up his gambling and debauchery Something about Titleist and Callaway that I couldn't quite follow Intentionally . . uhmm . .passing gas while other players are trying to tee off. Missing a lot of short putts

Jeez, if it's that off the wall, then Phil's going to have a tough time collecting, because the guy can claim it's satire. It's like when comedians make fun of Sarah Palin or whomever, she can't sue for slander even though everybody knows she didn't really eat a wolf raw, or whatever the joke is. You can say just about anything if it's satire.

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by Yukari

The only "grounds" Phil has is libel because it deals with supposedly untrue facts written about Phil.  I don't know where you get the notion that the grounds for Phil's suit also include "undo stress..."  Basically, Phil's got to prove that the writer knew the facts were untrue and still wrote about it.  Of course, with the law suit, the writer can seek all kinds of information from Phil to defend this libel suit.  If Phil's got any skeletons in the closet, the writer can potentially discover that during the discovery stage and make them public.

Maybe that is what the writer is looking for-a reason to allow him to dig deeper into Phil's personal life--legally.

Just my 2 cents.

If Phil or his lawyer have half a brain they already know this fact and seem to be ok with it. I have no problem with what he is doing because if someone verbally attacked my family I'd do the same exact thing. It's one thing to take shots at me but it's another when you start talking about my family. Even if he just outs the guy publicly it will be worth it to see an internet tough guy pulled from behind his computer into the public eye.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

lawyer will make the case that severe undo stress weakens the immunity system and makes them more susceptible to relapses.

Nothing like a little "undo" stress to ruin your day!

He should also go for a sees and decyst order or would that be "hors d'ouvres"?

[newtogolf]

Shorty are you a frustrated english teacher who has nothing better to do than correct our grammar and spelling errors in a golf forum or just in general an annoying person.  Thanks for the spell check, must be nice to have that much free time on your hands.

Originally Posted by Shorty

Nothing like a little "undo" stress to ruin your day!

He should also go for a sees and decyst order or would that be "hors d'ouvres"?

[Kieran123]

Well the guy is right about one thing. Phil does miss a lot of short putts.

[Stretch]

I squeeze them out on the tee box too. No foul in my fourball, Phil.

[stealthduffer]

Saying stuff that is factually true is one thing (yeah - Phil's been missing a lot of short putts) but libel is something else.  And bringing the family into is taking it too far.  Comments of this nature are not satire - satire is over-emphasizing something that exists (like Sarah Palin's accent) - making random unsupported comments about somebody or their family doesn't qualify.  I suspect that Phil and his legal team will go after this on a "reckless regard for the truth" basis.  You can't throw out a hundred comments and hope that one sticks so you can say "See - I told you this was true!"  But I can't see how this will stop the behaviour - this guy sounds like he has some serious issues.  Other than a court order barring him (or her - let's not jump to assumptions) from ever using a computer I can't see this stopping.

[MbolicGolf]

Libel- to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation , by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages.

in the law of defamation (libel and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice (hate).

libel per se

n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts , inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business . Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses.

He has a Case.

[brocks]

n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts , inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business . Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses. He has a Case.

I don't think it's as cut and dried as you make it sound. A few months ago, Bill Maher said this about Rick Perry on one of his recent shows, talking about the Republican debates: "he sounded like a sixth grader who didn't do the reading. Garbled syntax, messing up simple facts, sentences that went nowhere. Sarah Palin was watching and she said, “If only he was black, I'd f--k him." I'm not sure what he said about Perry was even a joke -- it sounds pretty accurate to me. But I'm pretty sure that he just made up what he said about Palin. And like him or not, he's got a lot of money, and he said it on a nationally broadcast show, which should make him a much easier and more lucrative target than some guy in his mom's basement posting comments on Yahoo. And yet, Palin hasn't sued him, and AFAIK there's no point in suing him, because he can say it's satire. Maher says stuff like this every week. HBO puts him on the air, and would be sued along with him if anybody thought they could win. HBO also presumably has a lot of lawyers, who have allowed this to go on for years. There must be something they know that makes them not worry about being sued.

[newtogolf]

It's not cut and dry, libel and slander cases usually aren't.  Phil wants the guy to stop posting these "lies" and suing him is the method he's chosen to do it.  He doesn't want or need the money, it's a threat plain and simple.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by brocks

Jeez, if it's that off the wall, then Phil's going to have a tough time collecting, because the guy can claim it's satire. It's like when comedians make fun of Sarah Palin or whomever, she can't sue for slander even though everybody knows she didn't really eat a wolf raw, or whatever the joke is. You can say just about anything if it's satire.

First of all, noone said anything at all about Phil being after money.

Secondly, the guy could say it's satire, but when the documents are looked at he'll have a hard time explaining why it is. He would not convince anyone that it was, because, plain and simple, it isn't.

Simple libel is not satire.

Remember the stupid story about Phil at the Masters? There was a thread on it here. Someone repoeated the urban myth about knowing someone who him played in th Masters Pro Am with Phil (even there is no such thing) and the bet with a member and threats by the committee etc etc BS came up.

That is not satire. that is malicious gossip and if Mickelson seriously wants to pursue it he will win.

This is what a lot of people don't seem to understand. It's the same as writing it in a newspaper article. Just because the person doing it is unknown (for the time being) doesn't give him the right to do it nor does it afford him protection.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by stealthduffer

And bringing the family into is taking it too far.  Comments of this nature are not satire - satire is over-emphasizing something that exists (like Sarah Palin's accent) - making random unsupported comments about somebody or their family doesn't qualify.

The subject of the commentary has no bearing on whether it's satirical or not.  The comments he made can absolutely be considered satire, but it depends on the mental state and intentions of the accused.  That is why it is hard to prove.

Originally Posted by MbolicGolf

He has a Case.

lol, no, he does not.  But if he results in the guy not posting this stuff anymore (either because he's banned from all of these websites, is scared away, or simply doesn't have the money to defend himself), then it will have accomplished Phil's naive and narrow-minded goal.

Brandon

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

It's not cut and dry, libel and slander cases usually aren't.  Phil wants the guy to stop posting these "lies" and suing him is the method he's chosen to do it.  He doesn't want or need the money, it's a threat plain and simple.

Why have you put the word "lies" in inverted commas?

This suggests to me that you think  that they are not lies.

And...what money? There is no mention of money.

How do you know it's  a threat? Again, you are doubting him, suggesting that he is not serious.Taking legal action is not a threat, it's taking legal action.

And....do you know what? If I were Phil I'd take it as far as I could to set an example of peole like this.