Fuzzy Zoeller sues unknown poster to Wikipedia
Fuzzy Zoeller didn't like his bio on Wikipedia, believing some of it was outright defamatory. For those of you who don't know, Wikipedia is the online encyclopaedia written by anyone who wants to post an entry. Fuzzy's entry was posted by some computer in a Miami firm.
According to TGC, "The paragraph in question has been removed, but the information has been picked up by other Web sites. The lawsuit said it alleged Zoeller abused drugs, alcohol and his family with no evidence to back up the statements. The derogatory information was first added in August 2006."
The Smoking Gun has Fuzzy's Complaint with all of the allegations.
It strikes me as the person who posted the Wikipedia entry must have had some axe to grind with Fuzzy. Why else would you spend time writing a Wikipedia entry for a golfer who has been so out of the limelight?
Labels: fuzzy
11 Comments:
Ridiculous. Only in the sue-happy USA, where the wealthy can use lawsuits and other means to enforce their will, and prevent people from speaking their minds (even if they might be wrong)... Welcome to the real world Fuzzy. Are you going to sue anyone who gives misinformation about you? Maybe we should have the government install cameras next to every watering hole to make sure people don't say anything we don't want them to!
While I agree that hair-trigger lawsuits aren't a good thing, I think your point is ridiculous and woefully naive. If I publicly (and incorrectly) slander you and make claims that defame your character is that acceptable? Are you cool with that because of my right to "speak my mind" no matter what I say? Somehow I don't think so.
By the way, I heard you're a drunk and have a thing for male goats.
It's totally lame and pathetic to sue a Wikipedia poster. Fuzzy is too fugging old to get it. Obvs.
BTW, male goats are kind of hot.
"BTW, male goats are kind of hot"
cool...just call me Billy.
The reason this only happens in the "sue-happy USA" is because we have a first ammendment which lets us say what we like without being charged with a crime. Unlike say Canada where it is against the law, a "hate crime" to say "I hate [insert sexual or race or religion]."
While I am rarely in favor of calling your lawyer first, clearly Fuzzy has a case for defamation and he has the choice to either fight it or admit, through lack of action, that he is an abuser.
This is a private action. The government has nothing to do with this. This isn't about being sue-happy, it's about defending the truth, which, by the way, is a good thing.
This might stem from when Fuzzy made a remark about what Tiger would want at the US Masters Champions Dinner in 1998.
Let's replace the name "Fuzzy" with "Tiger". Is anyone still around who would question his right to defend himself from defamation? Fuzzy is absolutely correct.
Why is everybody sueing each other?
I, mean come on, its just wikipedia! Any joe schmo could change what it says
nice punctuation. i might sue you for insulting our collective intelligence.
no harm ment,just making a point
Post a Comment
<< Home