Comment by filmgirlcw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by filmgirlcw | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

He’s a famous person who has been a prominent television anchor, his being a journalist has nothing to do with it.

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.

how is this public figure thing relevant when facebook is a public figure itself ? Isn't it actively damaging the journalist's reputation. So it would be OK if e.g. CNN claimed that "scientists say that iphones cause heart attacks"

Assuming a scientist actually said that, that would be fine. CNN doesn’t need to fact-check the scientists statement. Now, if evidence comes out that iPhones don’t cause cancer and CNN refuses to mention that there are refutations or disputes about that OR if CNN finds out affirmatively that those claims are false (the scientist admits they lied or retracts their statement) and doesn’t issue an on-air clarification or retraction (and if it was found that the scientist admitted to lying, that would almost certainly necessitate a retraction), CNN could be sued for defamation. That’s actually essentially what Dominion and others are doing with their lawsuits against Fox News and Newsmax and OANN.

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.

yeah i m talking about the case when it's a lie (which is what stossel claims). Also it seems the case you mention applies to public officials or people running for office, which doesnt seem to be the case here

The category isn't public "officials or people running for office." If you carefully read the preceding comments, you'll see that "public persons" is the phrase that was used. I think perhaps you read the "public" part and misunderstood what the phrase means in legal writing. In legal writing, it's a bit nebulous as mentioned, but includes well-known people commenting on matters, people who become unintentionally well-known for their thoughts, in addition to the obvious stuff like politicians.

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.

according to the wiki of the referenced case

> 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"

Formerly famous. He's one of those formerly small-L libertarians like Dennis Miller who took hard right turns after 9/11.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com