"curious" <_curio8888@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<2u8ghcF26hqk8U1@uni-berlin.de>...
Just curious
How does privacy work for public figures ?
Why don't they have the same rights as a private figure
(Don't start with "because (s)he is public"...........you know that is
stupid)
Why does the press have the right to hound private matters of public
figures
Because newsworthy accounts of the doings of public figures have First
Amendment protection.
Thank you for your informed answer.
However this is exactly the problem I have with so called protection with
"amendments".
First of all, it is an "amendment" . that in itself tells one that they
amended something to
fix a @$#* up in the first plcae. Secondly simply because it is an amendment
does not amke it
perfect. (Even the (Christian) Gospel is not accepted as it is by Christians
themself but is interpreted
and amended to the man's needs, let alone being totally unaccpted by peopel
of other religions )
Thirdly you are only looking at the US Constitution. How do other civilised
open constitutions
compare ? Fourthly there is no law that I am aware of that says that a
mistake in an amendment cannot be
reamended (Even if there is such a law taht can eb amended in itself).
This is why I find it a joke when the gun freaks use the second amendment
as their
excuse. Nothing could be more lame & cowardly than to seek constitutional
protection
to be a bambi-basher using a AK47 or sell Automatic weapons to anyone let
alone
convicted felons whilc the cops carry a toy like weapons in comparison.
If someone imposes himself or herself on the
public eye, he or she can expect there to be public interest in his or
her doings and journalists willing to make accounts of those doings
available to the public.
This is fine but why should something that is very private as a human being
should be public ?
Why should it be my (or public's) business as to where a movie star eats or
partys or dates ?
If the constitution (or amendments) allows that, then they should be
amended, wouldn't you think ?
When there is an account of the doings of a public figure, one that
would be an invasion of privacy if it were made about a private person
who is not a public figure in any way related to the account, there is
a weighing of the newsworthiness of the account against the damage
done to the public figure's privacy.
Yeah but this is grossly abused by the press now.
California has many public figures and strong privacy laws.
Trespassing in order to obtain information about personal and family
doings of a public figure is actionable invasion of privacy there.
If you don't want to be in the papers, live your life so that it
doesn't end up in the papers.
I disagree. Just because I am say Bill Gates why should my private doings
be any of your
@$#*ing business ? Simply because I am rich (And deservedly so) does it
give
an unethical reporter to exploit my life using some idiotic century old laws
that badly need
to be amended or discarded ?
..
