Be careful what you say on here…

[Anonymous]

Long time reader, rare poster, just giving my 2 cents, not expressing my legal opinion or giving any type of legal advice but, anyone can sue anybody for a number of reasons, doesn’t mean they are going to be successful in their lawsuit. I can foresee no viable lawsuit stemming from this. As far as libel, slander, false light and invasion of privacy are concerned they are some of the more difficult cases to win.

The common element with three of the four is the info has to be in fact false.

[Deal Hunter]

How do you define “public figure?” Isn’t the CEO, by default a public figure in that the CEO is the face of a corporation to the public?

Rebecca Hearst was not a public figure until CNBC reported that her $22 million beach front estate in FL went into foreclosure this morning! (Source: Maria Bartiromo, CNBC – do don’t sue me!)

[Deal Hunter]

How do you define “public figure?” Isn’t the CEO, by default a public figure in that the CEO is the face of a corporation to the public?

Rebecca Hearst was not a public figure until CNBC reported that her $22 million beach front estate in FL went into foreclosure this morning! (Source: Maria Bartiromo, CNBC – do don’t sue me!)

[Deal Hunter]

How do you define “public figure?” Isn’t the CEO, by default a public figure in that the CEO is the face of a corporation to the public?

Rebecca Hearst was not a public figure until CNBC reported that her $22 million beach front estate in FL went into foreclosure this morning! (Source: Maria Bartiromo, CNBC – do don’t sue me!)

[Deal Hunter]

How do you define “public figure?” Isn’t the CEO, by default a public figure in that the CEO is the face of a corporation to the public?

Rebecca Hearst was not a public figure until CNBC reported that her $22 million beach front estate in FL went into foreclosure this morning! (Source: Maria Bartiromo, CNBC – do don’t sue me!)

[Deal Hunter]

How do you define “public figure?” Isn’t the CEO, by default a public figure in that the CEO is the face of a corporation to the public?

Rebecca Hearst was not a public figure until CNBC reported that her $22 million beach front estate in FL went into foreclosure this morning! (Source: Maria Bartiromo, CNBC – do don’t sue me!)

[Anonymous]

From expertlaw.com:

The concept of the “public figure” is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an “involuntary public figure” as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a “limited public figure” by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show’s advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta’s status as a “limited public figure”.

[Anonymous]

From expertlaw.com:

The concept of the “public figure” is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an “involuntary public figure” as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a “limited public figure” by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show’s advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta’s status as a “limited public figure”.

[Anonymous]

From expertlaw.com:

The concept of the “public figure” is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an “involuntary public figure” as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a “limited public figure” by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show’s advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta’s status as a “limited public figure”.

[Anonymous]

From expertlaw.com:

The concept of the “public figure” is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an “involuntary public figure” as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a “limited public figure” by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show’s advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta’s status as a “limited public figure”.

[Anonymous]

From expertlaw.com:

The concept of the “public figure” is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an “involuntary public figure” as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a “limited public figure” by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show’s advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta’s status as a “limited public figure”.

[Coronita]

I think folks if your read ocrenters what I quickly latched onto was the sheer hassle if one gets entangled into a lawsuit, regardless of how frivolous it is. Time is money, and if that other guy really wants to be a prick and spend time trying to go after people (even if it most likely won't stand up in court), being on the receiving end, you'll have to spend some time in court, legal fees, etc. Even if you win your case, what do you really win? There's no monetary compensation for you in winning your defense…So while I think ocrenter's blog is great, I can understand the pragmatism in what was done. Besides, that guy has brought so much attention onto himself, that this story has spread on the internet beyond the initial blog. Ironic isn't it?

I can sort of relate to these lawsuits, because if you've even been involved in a minor fenderbender where the other guy/gal just wants blood, you'll realize what a P.I.T.A. people in CA can be. Sometimes, even if the person clearly was at fault for causing the accident, you'll inevitability run into some prick that not only later refuses to acknowledge he/she was the cause, but actually tries to lie and turn the story around and blame you for it. That's why, I always travel with a handle digital camera and video camera. You never know when it will be handy.

 
I have to say though. Some people need to chill on being so defensive about "reputation" from what is said in a blog. I guess working in corporate america for so long, I can't count how many times people at work at backstabed others or me, or tried to question my credibility, etc. Do i have grounds to sue? I think not.

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I think folks if your read ocrenters what I quickly latched onto was the sheer hassle if one gets entangled into a lawsuit, regardless of how frivolous it is. Time is money, and if that other guy really wants to be a prick and spend time trying to go after people (even if it most likely won't stand up in court), being on the receiving end, you'll have to spend some time in court, legal fees, etc. Even if you win your case, what do you really win? There's no monetary compensation for you in winning your defense…So while I think ocrenter's blog is great, I can understand the pragmatism in what was done. Besides, that guy has brought so much attention onto himself, that this story has spread on the internet beyond the initial blog. Ironic isn't it?

I can sort of relate to these lawsuits, because if you've even been involved in a minor fenderbender where the other guy/gal just wants blood, you'll realize what a P.I.T.A. people in CA can be. Sometimes, even if the person clearly was at fault for causing the accident, you'll inevitability run into some prick that not only later refuses to acknowledge he/she was the cause, but actually tries to lie and turn the story around and blame you for it. That's why, I always travel with a handle digital camera and video camera. You never know when it will be handy.

 
I have to say though. Some people need to chill on being so defensive about "reputation" from what is said in a blog. I guess working in corporate america for so long, I can't count how many times people at work at backstabed others or me, or tried to question my credibility, etc. Do i have grounds to sue? I think not.

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I think folks if your read ocrenters what I quickly latched onto was the sheer hassle if one gets entangled into a lawsuit, regardless of how frivolous it is. Time is money, and if that other guy really wants to be a prick and spend time trying to go after people (even if it most likely won't stand up in court), being on the receiving end, you'll have to spend some time in court, legal fees, etc. Even if you win your case, what do you really win? There's no monetary compensation for you in winning your defense…So while I think ocrenter's blog is great, I can understand the pragmatism in what was done. Besides, that guy has brought so much attention onto himself, that this story has spread on the internet beyond the initial blog. Ironic isn't it?

I can sort of relate to these lawsuits, because if you've even been involved in a minor fenderbender where the other guy/gal just wants blood, you'll realize what a P.I.T.A. people in CA can be. Sometimes, even if the person clearly was at fault for causing the accident, you'll inevitability run into some prick that not only later refuses to acknowledge he/she was the cause, but actually tries to lie and turn the story around and blame you for it. That's why, I always travel with a handle digital camera and video camera. You never know when it will be handy.

 
I have to say though. Some people need to chill on being so defensive about "reputation" from what is said in a blog. I guess working in corporate america for so long, I can't count how many times people at work at backstabed others or me, or tried to question my credibility, etc. Do i have grounds to sue? I think not.

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I think folks if your read ocrenters what I quickly latched onto was the sheer hassle if one gets entangled into a lawsuit, regardless of how frivolous it is. Time is money, and if that other guy really wants to be a prick and spend time trying to go after people (even if it most likely won't stand up in court), being on the receiving end, you'll have to spend some time in court, legal fees, etc. Even if you win your case, what do you really win? There's no monetary compensation for you in winning your defense…So while I think ocrenter's blog is great, I can understand the pragmatism in what was done. Besides, that guy has brought so much attention onto himself, that this story has spread on the internet beyond the initial blog. Ironic isn't it?

I can sort of relate to these lawsuits, because if you've even been involved in a minor fenderbender where the other guy/gal just wants blood, you'll realize what a P.I.T.A. people in CA can be. Sometimes, even if the person clearly was at fault for causing the accident, you'll inevitability run into some prick that not only later refuses to acknowledge he/she was the cause, but actually tries to lie and turn the story around and blame you for it. That's why, I always travel with a handle digital camera and video camera. You never know when it will be handy.

 
I have to say though. Some people need to chill on being so defensive about "reputation" from what is said in a blog. I guess working in corporate america for so long, I can't count how many times people at work at backstabed others or me, or tried to question my credibility, etc. Do i have grounds to sue? I think not.

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Author]

Posts