* Oldak Quill wrote:
According to your first link a public figure could be defined as someone who is "pervasively involved in public affairs". Couldn't this definition include headmasters or even teachers in state-funded schools?
That doesn't seem particularly 'pervasive'... and certainly is not how the law regarding 'public figures' is actually applied. That 'pervasive' is meant to apply to celebrities, national level politicians, and the like... people who are constantly in the public eye. You don't see newspapers looking into the history of random school teachers because it would be an obvious invasion of privacy. Unless the person is part of newsworthy events the press has no business writing about them - and even then only in regards to those newsworthy events. Our barriers should be AT LEAST that high.
If the 'non public' information about a person isn't sufficient to fill out an article then they ought to be able to request not to have an article as a matter of privacy. Being briefly involved in a major news story does not mean that all details of your life should from then on be open to the public.