UFC demands retraction from C,potato for outrageous states d

[shogun86]

http://www.mmamania.com/2012/4/17/29551 ... #storyjump

Shit just got real.

The gang over at CagePotato.com have their hands full after the legal team behind Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) failed to see the humor in a recent post that suggested promotion president Dana White was wagering on fights under his jurisdiction.

From today's official release:

Zuffa, LLC, dba the Ultimate Fighting Championship® (UFC®), today announced that it served a demand for retraction upon the parent entities and executives of the website CagePotato regarding certain false and defamatory statements attributed to UFC® President, Dana White, in an April 14th website posting.

As detailed in the formal demand for a retraction prepared by UFC® attorney, Donald J. Campbell of the Las Vegas law firm, Campbell & Williams:

"The claim that Mr. White would financially wager on the outcome of a UFC® event is outrageous in the extreme. Indeed, in the verified complaint we are presently preparing for Mr. White's signature upon his return from Abu Dhabi, Mr. White expressly states under oath that at no time in the history of his association with the UFC® has he ever financially wagered on the outcome of a UFC® event."

Mr. Campbell further explained that under Nevada law a demand for retraction is the first required step in the filing of a lawsuit seeking punitive damages against a party that has maliciously published defamatory statements about another.

A screenshot of the actual post in question, after the jump.



Note to aspiring bloggers: If they didn't say it, don't use quotation marks.

The jab at White stems from the promotion's recent decision to sponsor UFC Light Heavyweight Champion Jon Jones. Critics of the deal call it a conflict of interest while proponents think it's the way of the future and no different than standard UFC bonuses and awards.

Anyone think the punishment doesn't fit the crime?

[Housewinsxx]

What punishment? The guy will just retract the statement and that will be that.

[Zoidborg]

this shows how the laws are designed for and by the powerful (rich)

Remember back in history liable was charged on anyone who defamed the aristocrats no matter if it was true or not. In fact if your defaming was true that meant you were more guilty.

back in those days if you claimed that Dana was betting on his own fights and you were able to prove it... you just proved that you are guilty of defaming him.

funny how little has changed

[Housewinsxx]

this shows how the laws are designed for and by the powerful (rich)

Remember back in history liable was charged on anyone who defamed the aristocrats no matter if it was true or not. In fact if your defaming was true that meant you were more guilty.

back in those days if you claimed that Dana was betting on his own fights and you were able to prove it... you just proved that you are guilty of defaming him.

funny how little has changed

He used quotation marks on a statement that would pretty much discredit the UFC as a company. I really can't see how anyone would think this is ok.

[Zoidborg]

this shows how the laws are designed for and by the powerful (rich)

Remember back in history liable was charged on anyone who defamed the aristocrats no matter if it was true or not. In fact if your defaming was true that meant you were more guilty.

back in those days if you claimed that Dana was betting on his own fights and you were able to prove it... you just proved that you are guilty of defaming him.

funny how little has changed

He used quotation marks on a statement that would pretty much discredit the UFC as a company. I really can't see how anyone would think this is ok.

First off why the hell would you go and assume one side is right in a legal battle... you dont know if dana has bet on UFC fights or not now do you... you have not heard any evidence, yet you already know somehow magically.

secondly free speech, if the UFC wants to remove this joke caption they should have to prove in the court of law that its false... i dont see how thats possible.

Thirdly this is purely about power, you can print anything you want about anyone without a large legal department. but you better watch what you say about the powerful.

[JD1]

If Rashad wins he'd just find a way to weasel out of having to pay.

Remember the alledged $500,000 wager he placed on Liddell winning the '03 Pride Middleweight GP?

In all seriousness, though, completely understandable that White and co. would issue a demand for a retraction on a falsified quote.

[Housewinsxx]

this shows how the laws are designed for and by the powerful (rich)

Remember back in history liable was charged on anyone who defamed the aristocrats no matter if it was true or not. In fact if your defaming was true that meant you were more guilty.

back in those days if you claimed that Dana was betting on his own fights and you were able to prove it... you just proved that you are guilty of defaming him.

funny how little has changed

He used quotation marks on a statement that would pretty much discredit the UFC as a company. I really can't see how anyone would think this is ok.

First off why the hell would you go and assume one side is right in a legal battle... you dont know if dana has bet on UFC fights or not now do you... you have not heard any evidence, yet you already know somehow magically.

secondly free speech, if the UFC wants to remove this joke caption they should have to prove in the court of law that its false... i dont see how thats possible.

Thirdly this is purely about power, you can print anything you want about anyone without a large legal department. but you better watch what you say about the powerful.

Do you by any chance understand what quotation marks mean?

[Housewinsxx]

I think you're missing the point. The website is free to speculate about what they want but using quotation marks on a fabricated statement is defamatory and illegal.

[Zoidborg]

this shows how the laws are designed for and by the powerful (rich)

Remember back in history liable was charged on anyone who defamed the aristocrats no matter if it was true or not. In fact if your defaming was true that meant you were more guilty.

back in those days if you claimed that Dana was betting on his own fights and you were able to prove it... you just proved that you are guilty of defaming him.

funny how little has changed

He used quotation marks on a statement that would pretty much discredit the UFC as a company. I really can't see how anyone would think this is ok.

First off why the hell would you go and assume one side is right in a legal battle... you dont know if dana has bet on UFC fights or not now do you... you have not heard any evidence, yet you already know somehow magically.

secondly free speech, if the UFC wants to remove this joke caption they should have to prove in the court of law that its false... i dont see how thats possible.

Thirdly this is purely about power, you can print anything you want about anyone without a large legal department. but you better watch what you say about the powerful.

Do you by any chance understand what quotation marks mean?

LOL

yes i do

do you understand that Dana White may have made that exact statement himself... from his own lips.

if so there is no harm in quoting him

do you understand that not one of us knows if Dana has said this or not.

[MMA Addict]

do you understand that Dana White may have made that exact statement himself... from his own lips.

if so there is no harm in quoting him

do you understand that not one of us knows if Dana has said this or not.

Please mate, don't tell me you're that gullible to believe Dana would say what has been put into quotation marks... there isn't a "fuck" or "shit" in anything being quoted - obviously not Dana

[upintheclouds]

LOL

yes i do

do you understand that Dana White may have made that exact statement himself... from his own lips.

if so there is no harm in quoting him

do you understand that not one of us knows if Dana has said this or not.

You can't just throw quotes on something because he MIGHT have said it. If he did say that don't you think this would have been big time news? You're going with the guilty until proven innocent approach, it goes innocent until proven guilty.

[Zoidborg]

LOL

yes i do

do you understand that Dana White may have made that exact statement himself... from his own lips.

if so there is no harm in quoting him

do you understand that not one of us knows if Dana has said this or not.

You can't just throw quotes on something because he MIGHT have said it. If he did say that don't you think this would have been big time news? You're going with the guilty until proven innocent approach, it goes innocent until proven guilty.

LOL

no it is you who has rejected innocent until proven guilty... CP can quote anything they please... because they are innocent until proven guilty... therefor Dana would have to prove the quote is inaccurate in the court of law for CP to be guilty of anything.

[MuayCrim]

do you understand that Dana White may have made that exact statement himself... from his own lips.

if so there is no harm in quoting him

do you understand that not one of us knows if Dana has said this or not.

Please mate, don't tell me you're that gullible to believe Dana would say what has been put into quotation marks... there isn't a "fuck" or "shit" in anything being quoted - obviously not Dana

That's a very good point. If the quote doesn't have one "fuck" in it then it is FAKE.

[ThaBlackGuy]

do you understand that Dana White may have made that exact statement himself... from his own lips.

if so there is no harm in quoting him

do you understand that not one of us knows if Dana has said this or not.

Please mate, don't tell me you're that gullible to believe Dana would say what has been put into quotation marks... there isn't a "fuck" or "shit" in anything being quoted - obviously not Dana

lmao--- so true. clearly not dana. Good one

[duallie]

I think you're missing the point. The website is free to speculate about what they want but using quotation marks on a fabricated statement is defamatory and illegal.

wow.
punctuation can really get one into trouble.
maybe that's why many on here choose not to use it.