Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> writes:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
> Remember, this is the one-judge-in-the-world. I refuse to
believe
> that there is any judge who could ever think that
Seigenthaler
was
> not a public figure - but given the number of my
peers who have
> stated firmly that Brandt is only "border-line notable" or
> "non-notable", I have to assume it is possible a judge might
agree
with them, as
they are equally rational and intelligent beings
(perhaps with more legal knowledge than I).
It doesn't matter if he a public figure or not, that seems to
have
virtually nothing to do with anything as far as I can
see.
--Jimbo
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Brandt's argument that there
shouldn't be an article on him because he's not public, and thus
any such article is harassment, invasion of privacy, and a number
of other things, for which the Foundation is guilty by its support
of the status quo? It would seem to me to be important whether
he's a public figure or not in the judge's reckoning.
--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.