he s a journalist, like the fact-checkers, no? how does 'public figure' work? So, it's like a barber libeling another barber?
(btw it's ridiculous to call them 'fact-checkers' -- all journalists are factcheckers, some are good some bad)
(btw it's ridiculous to call them 'fact-checkers' -- all journalists are factcheckers, some are good some bad)
The definition of public figure is nebulous, and sometimes it can even be argued a regular person becomes a ”limited purpose public figure” if they are involved in a public controversy.
Stossel isn’t even an argument because again, he used to host 20/20 on ABC and has been a broadcaster for 30 some odd years. He’s a public figure. But using a real world example, I’m not famous, but by any legal standard, I would be considered a public figure because I have a Wikipedia page, I'm verified on every major social network, I’ve appeared on television, and I’m recognized as a prominent person in the various industries that I have worked in. I know this, not because I’ve ever wanted to sue someone for libel or defamation, but because there have been a few isolated incidents where I received harassment/death threats/rape threats via my work addresses (which obligates me to report them to law enforcement), and the amount of fucks police in the US are willing to give about idle threats to public figures are almost zero. I’m generally OK with this (I have only ever reported threats when I’ve been required to do so my company policy), but it is what it is.
Even taking legal protections out of it and just looking policy enforcement, according to Facebook's terms of service, people can call for my death on their platform, provided they don’t tag me. But if someone says, “Christina Warren should just die already,” that’s completely fine according to Facebook's own terms of service, because they consider me a public figure. Now if someone directly tags me, that may or may not be harassment, but even though Facebook isn’t the same as legal requirements, it shows their own rules are different for public figures.
You’re not wrong that there could be a damage done to the public figure/journalist's reputation. There could. But on the basis of New York Times vs Sullivan (a landmark Supreme Court decision and one of the most important first amendment cases), that doesn’t outweigh the free speech rights of the press. Moreover, the public figures by their nature, have more access and ability to respond to a defamatory claim, because they gave their own platform and reach. That’s why the standards of actual malice and reckless disregard are so high.
This is from a website with a very good definition of libel law (https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center...):
> The different standards exist because public figures are at the center of matters of public concern–matters that the press should report on as part of its “watchdog” role on the government. If journalists could be punished for every error published about a public figure, they might avoid reporting on controversial subjects that concern the public. The public would lose access to crucial information. > > Also, public figures generally have greater access to the media in order to counter defamatory statements, and to a certain extent seek out public acclaim and assume the risks of fame.
Host of a nationwide broadcast? 100% a public person and not even close. It's a dumb lawsuit and a good lawyer would have told Stossel as much.
> it held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or person running for public office, not only must he or she prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—he or she must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice",
But as i understand it is now being applied to celebrities as well
TBH i only know stossel from his twitter and videos that i see in libertarian channels (i m not in the US). Didn't know he was so famous in the US. I wonder whether that (international audience) counts for defining what is "public official"
"Determining who is a public or private figure is not always easy. In some instances, the categories may overlap. For example, a blogger who is a well-known authority on clinical research involving autism may be considered a public figure for purposes of controversies involving autism, but not for other purposes. "
https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice...
But yes, it can be very fact specific.
At least that was the case before the checkers started to get fired to save cost because online you can easily change errors after publication.
He did a interview on wrestling years ago. He went in doing his cutesy made for tv interview. The kind of interview that idiots seem to like. That in you face, and I'm going to out you.
He kept on calling it fake, which it is.
A idiot wrestler got fed up up with the guy, and slaped him. An open slap that most of us might slough off.
In court, he claimed long term physical/psychological damage from the slap. He claimed his hearing was permently damaged. Just a whiny baby with a monetary motive?
He got a nice fat settlement, from the wrestler, and WWF.
(I don't condone any violence, and never understood fake wrestling, but Stossel got his taste of easy judicial money, and him suing doesn't suprise me.)
And getting slapped in the ear can cause permanent damage. Look up "boxing someone's ears" for more info.
> I don't condone any violence
No, you just talk about "an open slap that most of us might slough off", and call someone a "whiny baby" for not sloughing it off.
Some time ago, I don't know when, he _really_ went off the deep end into libertarian la-la land. Suing and aggressive legal maneuvers are practically a sacrament to such hardcore libertarians.
I don't think so. Most journalists these days start with a agenda and cherry pick facts to make their stories. It's so obvious it's laughable.