slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
This legal talk is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand ... There is an encyclopedic interest issue at stake. Will relevant
information be removed from an article because an exposed fraud's ego is bruised?
David, regarding the issue of encyclopedic interest: public figures are treated very differently by journalists, particularly in the U.S. where libel law is quite different when it comes to public figures, but also in other countries where there's no distinction in law. Public figures are seen to some extent as fair game, whereas the right of private individuals to retain their privacy and dignity is respected by good journalists, so even if some demonstrably true titbit comes their way, they'll hesitate to use it if it would damage a private person, provided there's no public-interest issue at stake.
I would say anybody who posts to Usenet automatically becomes a "public figure"; you can hardly spew your thoughts and opinions into a million computers around the world, then try to claim "privacy". If you want to be private, start by keeping your mouth shut, eh?
I had that brought home to me many years ago when one of my heated arguments on Usenet was brought up in a job interview. (Fortunately, the interviewer agreed with my points.)
Stan