CEO's of small penny companies are NOT public figu
Post# of 1412
Posted On: 10/03/2014 9:14:29 PM
CEO's of small penny companies are NOT public figures, as defined by the right to privacy
The whole point of the different standards for defamation is the various distinctions of the private public spectrum and the constitutional right to privacy etc
Even public personalities retain a constitutional right to privacy -including the ''reckless disregard for the truth'' defamation standard of New York vs Sullivan -US Supreme Court,1964, if memory serves.
Rock and movie and sports stars and top political figures-the public personalities protected by the above standard- have the least privacy rights, because they make their living FROM their fame.
Then lesser personalities of the same stripe
Then other groups like CEO's of huge companies etc,because they dont make a living FROM their fame,except for a small number at the top
CEO's of small penny companies are a lot closer to private individual status- where the defamation standard is mere negligence- than they are to public personalities like rock and movie stars.
Then there's the relevancy problem. Even if the info is true, it can be actionable on other grounds like harassment and tort interference w relationships etc.
E.g.what is the relevancy of the love life or traffic citations or personal land use planning matters re the CEO of most small penny companies?
Normally, the only relevancy is shorters ability to use such matters -harping on these matters over and over and over- just to make a profit by stealing from longs. Those things normally have no relevancy and thus should be of off topic imo.
I'm not talking about more serious things like repeated DWI'S, which, while such may make one a fraternity hero in college , may in many adults opinions reflect negatively on judgement and morality etc,which MAY be relevant depending on the TYPE of company.
The whole point of the different standards for defamation is the various distinctions of the private public spectrum and the constitutional right to privacy etc
Even public personalities retain a constitutional right to privacy -including the ''reckless disregard for the truth'' defamation standard of New York vs Sullivan -US Supreme Court,1964, if memory serves.
Rock and movie and sports stars and top political figures-the public personalities protected by the above standard- have the least privacy rights, because they make their living FROM their fame.
Then lesser personalities of the same stripe
Then other groups like CEO's of huge companies etc,because they dont make a living FROM their fame,except for a small number at the top
CEO's of small penny companies are a lot closer to private individual status- where the defamation standard is mere negligence- than they are to public personalities like rock and movie stars.
Then there's the relevancy problem. Even if the info is true, it can be actionable on other grounds like harassment and tort interference w relationships etc.
E.g.what is the relevancy of the love life or traffic citations or personal land use planning matters re the CEO of most small penny companies?
Normally, the only relevancy is shorters ability to use such matters -harping on these matters over and over and over- just to make a profit by stealing from longs. Those things normally have no relevancy and thus should be of off topic imo.
I'm not talking about more serious things like repeated DWI'S, which, while such may make one a fraternity hero in college , may in many adults opinions reflect negatively on judgement and morality etc,which MAY be relevant depending on the TYPE of company.
(0)
(0)