Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
First, my point had nothing to do with the employee.
|
No, but mine did.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aramike
Secondly, people who profit off of their public image invite public scrutiny, fair or not, consistant with the US' libel laws.
|
Well really anybody who has a public image is liable for scrutiny- even ordinary chumps like you and me-- fair or not. But defamation laws here are just as closely related to privacy laws, and according to our privacy laws, the dissemination (debate or discussion of . . . by public members) of private information in this manner is really in violation of said privacy laws because of the element of subjective expectations of privacy.
With that said, we must, in the interest of the law, focus on the main legal discussion at hand here: which is not about Letterman's sexual circle/chastity, but the fact that his supervisor attempted to extort him over his sexual circle/chastity. Issues of chastity are protected by privacy laws; extortion, as done against him by his supervisor, is not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aramike
Third, anyone getting involved with a public figure risks publicity for doing so.
|
Yeah... and? This isn't news to us. This is an element of everyday life for us all. Well, all of us who have a social life anyway.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aramike
So yes, it's relevant.
|
Not to us. Unless we're going to be sitting in court hearing the case anyway, in which case we'll be entitled to hear the details of the case and we won't be in violation of anything pertaining to privacy laws.