* 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.