Did Mike Rossi (viral marathon dad) cheat his way into Boston?

Someone posts Bluto's big speech and Mike gets scared.

I love this thread.

Don't be a moron wrote:

Ummm...don't be a moron.

1) Picture of 9 year-old was indeed 'liked'* - So, a statement of fact. Dear me!

2) Question posed regarding "law enforcement say(s)" - One cannot pose this question? Give me a break!

3) Definition provided ("that is pedophilia") - Well, being wrong about a definition isn't exactly a crime.

So please, don't be a moron.

* - if folks on here are to be believed - I haven't check myself

I am an attorney.

Here is the common law definition of libel:

Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.

There is case law where falsely claiming one is a pedophile was grounds for a tort. Take Mary Anne Bojko v. Laurie A. Lima [2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1359] for example:

Bojko requested that Lima write a retraction, but Lima refused. Instead, she sent more e-mails, including one to the district superintendent, Marion Martinez, in which she again linked Bojko and the term "pedophile." Bojko sued.

Lima's admissions made the court's deliberations on the charges of defamation and libel (written defamation) relatively simple. Bojko was able to demonstrate that: (1) Lima published a defamatory statement; (2) the defamatory statement identified Bojko to a third person; (3) the defamatory statement was published to a third person; and (4) Bojko's reputation suffered injury as a result of the statement. In ruling that Bojko was able to prove her claim for libel, the court ruled that falsely accusing anyone who works with children of being a pedophile is defamatory on its face.

Having ruled against Lima on every count, the court awarded Bojko $88,374 for her economic damages (her loss of coaching income and her therapist bills), the emotional distress caused by Lima's conduct and punitive damages.

So I appreciate the moron comment. You obviously know what you are doing.

I see, moron. So pray tell how is any of

1) Stating a fact

2) Asking a question regarding law enforcement

3) Posting an incorrect definition

libelous?

Yeah, you obviously know what you are doing, moron.

Where exactly has someone said that a certain person is a pedo?

Hi Mike's lawyer! Wait, does that cause emotional distress?Post the story Brojas!

don't be stupid wrote:

I am an attorney.

Here is the common law definition of libel:......

emotional distress caused by Lima's conduct and punitive damages.

So I appreciate the moron comment. You obviously know what you are doing.

Animal House wrote:

Neutral Observertard wrote:

I most certainly did... after watching the link the previous time that you posted it :)

Oops. Sorry, my bad.

And now for an hour of self-flagellation for atonement.

It's ok. I actually hadn't got the reference until you posted the link (the first time that is!). I'm not sure I have ever even seen Animal House.

Your mom won't let you rent movies?

Sissy.

Hahha.

MR and MR lawyer!

Hahhhahahahah. Slow on foot slow elsewhere.

Don't be a moron wrote:

What does law enforcement say about liking Facebook pictures of 9 years old girls? Strictly speaking, that is pedophilia.

[/quote]

How does the reference to law enforcement negate your likening MR's conduct to pedophilia?

For example, "What does Santa Clause think about liking Facebook pictures of 9 year old girls? Strictly speaking, that is pedophilia."

First, you ask what another person would think of a certain act. Then, you state that the act is pedophilia. Those two are unrelated. You are saying that MR acted in a way that is considered pedophilia.

Moreover, the reference is clearly attributable to Mike Rossi. If the statement is false, and the plaintiff can show harm, then that is enough to file a lawsuit. Letsrun is within its rights to provide what identifying information they can under their Terms and Conditions.

So an attorney can already be checking elements off on the list for common law libel. I know that I would be doing this if I was MR's attorney.

Now, I don't expect you understand any of this and think it is a joke. But I am just putting this out there so that other people know where the line is.

For those of you waiting for the Brojos to write a bold, brave expose on MR, you will be gravely disappointed.

They are now so scared of their own shadows, they are deleting Animal House lines.

What's that other word for cats?

Yeah, Brojos.

Is that poop in your pants?

After all the brave talk, you just got scared by Mike Rossi.

Pathetic.

WWRD wrote:

Hi Mike's lawyer! Wait, does that cause emotional distress?

Post the story Brojas!

don't be stupid wrote:

I am an attorney.

Here is the common law definition of libel:......

emotional distress caused by Lima's conduct and punitive damages.

So I appreciate the moron comment. You obviously know what you are doing.

Regarding the case:

Bojko's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress was also straightforward. Finding Lima's conduct extreme and outrageous, the court noted that Lima clearly engaged in such conduct to inflict emotional distress on Bojko. In fact, Lima admitted she enjoyed the fact that the false allegations caused Bojko distress and that she found it "hysterical" to send the defamatory e-mails to as many people as possible.

If I was MR's attorney you better believe that I would be contacting Letsrun and seeking out some money right now. If you have ever been sued you know the drill.

attorney fodder wrote:

First, you ask what another person would think of a certain act. Then, you state that the act is pedophilia. Those two are unrelated. You are saying that MR acted in a way that is considered pedophilia.

It doesn't take a law degree to see this. But they are probably 14 year olds and don't have much $$$ to pay out anyways.

I would love to see them get sued though. It might make LR news.

Is it libel to post that in my opinion Mike Rossi is a lying, cheating, douche bag of epic proportions?

sald;fjs;lkdajf;dslkjfdaf;s wrote:

attorney fodder wrote:

First, you ask what another person would think of a certain act. Then, you state that the act is pedophilia. Those two are unrelated. You are saying that MR acted in a way that is considered pedophilia.

It doesn't take a law degree to see this. But they are probably 14 year olds and don't have much $$$ to pay out anyways.

I would love to see them get sued though. It might make LR news.

The poster clearly had NO idea of what pedophilia is or means. Would it be libel to say "eating hamburgers is pedophilia, therefore X is a pedophile"?

Mike Rossi douchey wrote:

Is it libel to post that in my opinion Mike Rossi is a lying, cheating, douche bag of epic proportions?

No.

"Where the communication is an insult, if it is simply just mindless abuse of a person then this will not be regarded as defamatory. This is because the nature of the language that is likely to be used in such an instance is generic and therefore has no relation to the subject itself; in this case it is not likely to have any detrimental effect on the subject."

Those are generic statements you could make about anybody. Now, if you said that MR did something specific and alleged that he lied or cheated you, but he did not, then that is more likely to have traction in court.

For example: saying he liked an image of a child on the internet and likening him to a pedophile. That is getting specific and could have a much greater negative impact on somebody than calling them an idiot or something generic.

Attorneys don't need rock solid cases just to make people's lives a living hell. They need just enough evidence to make that person want to avoid any future confrontation by paying up some money.

If they get sued then the camera in front of my house will be removed and my home will have more protection. I won't run outside anymore because they are watching me. They are watching me in my car. I will leave the house on a bike in the morning while it is still dark outside so they can't see me. I have to have my family buy me an expensive laptop so they will have a harder time hacking it. So they don't watch and take my private work.

This is my life. They've taken my life. My privacy. I can't have the freedom to have a private life without suing them.

Neutral Observertard wrote:

sald;fjs;lkdajf;dslkjfdaf;s wrote:

It doesn't take a law degree to see this. But they are probably 14 year olds and don't have much $$$ to pay out anyways.

I would love to see them get sued though. It might make LR news.

The poster clearly had NO idea of what pedophilia is or means. Would it be libel to say "eating hamburgers is pedophilia, therefore X is a pedophile"?

Again, I said it was getting close to the line for libel. I am not making a case. If a reasonable person could perceive that what is being said could be damaging to one's reputation, then it is not impossible for a claim to survive a motion for summary judgment (depending on what the jurisdiction is). Here, somebody is saying MR did something, and that is something that pedophiles do. Do you see how that is getting close to the line?

"Though a civil case, defamation relies on the judgement of a jury. If a judge decides that the communication has the possibility of being damaging then the jury must consider firstly what the meaning of the words or imagery is in its normal context, then they need to decide if its use can be defamatory. The jury should not consider the intention of the defendant, nor the knowledge that they have."

Sorry if people here don't know the difference between advice and lawsuits.

If they get sued then the camera in front of my house will be removed and my home will have more protection. I won't run outside anymore because they are watching me. They are watching me in my car. I will leave the house on a bike in the morning while it is still dark outside so they can't see me. I have to have my family buy me an expensive laptop so they will have a harder time hacking it. So they don't watch and take my private work.

This is my life. They've taken my life. My privacy. I can't have the freedom to have a private life without suing them.

Lawsuit wrote:

If they get sued then the camera in front of my house will be removed and my home will have more protection. I won't run outside anymore because they are watching me. They are watching me in my car. I will leave the house on a bike in the morning while it is still dark outside so they can't see me. I have to have my family buy me an expensive laptop so they will have a harder time hacking it. So they don't watch and take my private work.

This is my life. They've taken my life. My privacy. I can't have the freedom to have a private life without suing them.

What IS this ^ ?