Originally Posted by
eaglefly
People have won judgements before for EXACTLY this type of thing.
Not saying he would do it, nor defending his "rep". It makes no difference what his misrepresenatations were, but using his facial picture in this manner has gotten people sued before.
If there were no potential jeopardy in doing this, by the same token then, I could find a picture of you and superimpose it on someone having an improper relationship with the back end of a farm animal, put it on the internet and you'd have no cause for defamation, right ?
[edit; insult removed] The alleged victim has to have a character to defame in the first place! Opinions, no matter how malicious, are not the same as stated fact. Hurt feelings or loss of social status don't reach the legal definition of 'damages'. No one made up the crap that came out of his mouth; it was HIM who stated all the false facts. I highly doubt a jury of his peers will find him the victim. That is one of the most difficult cases to prove in court. How about some actual case #'s instead of a general statement like "people" have won judgments and "people" have gotten sued.