David Letterman

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Aramike

People who interject themselves into the public eye by way of profession are legally protected far differently, and less, than "ordinary chumps".

No, they're not. They have the same rights as we do, they follow the same laws as we do. Now do they have business regulations and such from contracts? You betcha. But those are also bound by the law that the rest of us follow.

Originally Posted by Aramike

Dude, where did I at all suggest that extortion is legal?

Where did I openly say that you suggested that it was legal? I didn't.

Originally Posted by Aramike

My issue was with this statement that you made:This has nothing to do with the extortion aspect of the case. You were apparently criticizing people for taking an interest in the NOW PUBLIC personal affairs in his life.

I criticize those who meddle in the business of others because they're nosy; I've got nothing wrong in taking an interest in it- just with snooping and being hypocritical by acting like a saint.

Originally Posted by Aramike

My point was that, oh well! That's what happens when you've made your image into your business. If things happen that tarnish that image, despite whether or not you THINK it should tarnish that image, that's the risk you take.

Not denying that.

Originally Posted by Aramike

I have no idea why you've extrapolated that into the legality of the extortion case.Yeah, not really.

Because the topic to begin with was about the extortion incident and law.

Originally Posted by Aramike

Having an active social life does not qualify one as a public figure, either legally or figuratively.

Public Figure: referring to any person who receives any particular amount of interest from others (Oxford American Dictionary & Thesaurus, 2003 Edition). If you have an active social life, then you are involved with other people in a regular, in-depth manner. So you are a public figure. Not legally or figuratively, by simple definition.

Originally Posted by Aramike

You're changing the argument my statement was in response to in an attempt to make it irrelevant.

That's not true and you know it, just as you know that the public's "perception" hardly changes the extortion element of the legal side of the incident, as was the original point by me which you commented on in the first place.