David Letterman

[Aramike]

I quite frankly do not nor will I ever care. This is between Dave, the employee, and his supervisor; not us- or anybody else for that matter. Nevertheless, people like to stick their nose into other people's business because they think they need to know EVERYTHING that goes on in the lives of others... for that matter, they're hypocritical in doing so. As if they've never had adulterous thoughts- or even an affair (the latter being the more "serious" of the two by general opinion, but if they're both "immoral" then they would as well be equally serious).

The difference is that the person in question profits off of his public perception. Your average person does not.

[Blood_splat]

Dave is cheap!

What's 2 million to him?

[XabbaRus]

Yes I ahev when I lived in the US I couldn't get over the fact that you would have a violent action film on in the early evening and all the swearwords were overdubbed and any sex or nudity was taken out but hey you could watch a guys guts explode.

In Britain we have our hangups about sex too but I think in the US you are worse than us.

Saying that we seem to be having quite a few episodes at the moment with teachers and students and the sickes involving a nursery nurse and the kids she looked after.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Aramike

The difference is that the person in question profits off of his public perception. Your average person does not.

And this is relevant... how exactly? It's not. How does this change the fact that he was being bribed/extorted by his supervisor? It doesn't. How is this a problem? It's not; if he's got the ability to make money off something like this, then let him. It's not illegal; there are plenty of other people on TV who do it all the time. Like I said, it's a personal issue- so he's got every right to decide what to do with it and how to treat it. If he wants to keep it private, fine. If he wants to make it public, fine. He's at least respecting the wishes of the employee by keeping her name private.

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

He's at least respecting the wishes of the employee by keeping her name private.

Doubt any woman would want to be a member of the "I Shagged Dave Club" in public.

[Aramike]

And this is relevant... how exactly? It's not. How does this change the fact that he was being bribed/extorted by his supervisor? It doesn't. How is this a problem? It's not; if he's got the ability to make money off something like this, then let him. It's not illegal; there are plenty of other people on TV who do it all the time. Like I said, it's a personal issue- so he's got every right to decide what to do with it and how to treat it. If he wants to keep it private, fine. If he wants to make it public, fine. He's at least respecting the wishes of the employee by keeping her name private.

First, my point had nothing to do with the employee.

Secondly, people who profit off of their public image invite public scrutiny, fair or not, consistant with the US' libel laws.

Third, anyone getting involved with a public figure risks publicity for doing so.

So yes, it's relevant.

Putting the ethical standards aside this type of behavior can cause all sort of difficulty in the workplace.

An example.......

A supervisor who does not keep a certain professional distance from his employees and considers them friends, can cause issues for those who are not considered friends. In the office enviroment the behavior is easily detected and animosities develop. The actions of 'friends' are looked upon as sucking-up, while those' not considered friends' are often ridiculed, or left out of important decisions. The end result is a toxic work enviroment, which is detrimental to the workplace, and all involved.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Aramike

First, my point had nothing to do with the employee.

No, but mine did.

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.

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.

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.

[Aramike]

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.

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

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.

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

My issue was with this statement that you made:

I quite frankly do not nor will I ever care. This is between Dave, the employee, and his supervisor; not us- or anybody else for that matter. Nevertheless, people like to stick their nose into other people's business because they think they need to know EVERYTHING that goes on in the lives of others... for that matter, they're hypocritical in doing so. As if they've never had adulterous thoughts- or even an affair (the latter being the more "serious" of the two by general opinion, but if they're both "immoral" then they would as well be equally serious).

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.

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.

I have no idea why you've extrapolated that into the legality of the extortion case.

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.

Yeah, not really.

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

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.

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

[nikimcbee]

Look at the bright side, when Palin is on the show again, they'll have something interesting to talk about.

[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.

[Task Force]

LOL... I cant picture a man that old... doing that...