Talk:Richarlyson

GAAYY
OK, I don't understand. Can somebody clear this up? So, there was speculation that a soccer player was going to come out of the closet. Then this guy Cyrillo said it was Richarlyson who was the gay player. Why did he say this? Was it a joke or smack talk, a mistake or what? And so it wasn't Richarlyson, apparently, since he sued. Well who was the gay player? And then I'm just totally baffled by the judge's response. How does soccer being a masculine sport mean that the law suit should be dropped? What's the judge's reasoning? And what ended up happening? Thanks to anyone out there who has more info. 161.130.178.151 (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand it much either. There are two possible legal theories I can think of under which Richarlyson might have been suing. One is defamation -- in which Richarlyson would be saying that Cyrillo falsely claimed Richarlyson is gay, and Richarlyson would be saying that he isn't. The other is invasion of privacy -- in which Richarlyson would be saying that Cyrillo harmed him by disclosing the secret that he is gay. I don't know about Brazil, but under some legal systems a plaintiff might be able to bring both claims in the same lawsuit even though the two claims might seem inconsistent with each other. But, in any event, the judge's comments would only be relevant to an invasion of privacy-type claim. I can't tell from the article and the news coverage, though, whether Richarlyson admitted he was gay in the lawsuit; the way it's written, it sounds like the lawsuit was going to be one for defamation, in which Richarlyson would be suing on the grounds that he wasn't gay and that Cyrillo lied by saying he was. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)