olderguy

iTrader: (19)

At what point does a private citizen advocating a public cause in Congress and various TV shows become a public figure? When her 15 minutes of fame is in full bloom?; when it is over? Inquiring mind would like to know.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

maybe after she was able to coordinate with the white house and talk to obama?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I'm going with "Because she does not meet the legal definition of a public figure".

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc clearly establishes this.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

The majority desicion in the case says otherwise: "He plainly did not thrust himself into the vortex of this public issue, nor did he engage the public's attention in an attempt to influence its outcome."

Isn't that what she did?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

You may want to read the full decision, Brainy.

And, somewhat ironically, if you read that and infer the legal meanings, you may realize that my point has been proven with Rush if you read the additional clauses to that.

(Read: According to that, to do what Rush did is libel or slander. A lot of people are waiting on the resulting Rush lawsuit and the oh-so-interesting discovery phase on Rush. That'll be hilarious.)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

i just dont care, -----.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Lolol.

Dude, if Rush gets forced into discovery, he's going to have to do a looooooooot of explaining about some Dominican boys.

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=105&load=6709

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Soz Bro, but if I can't link Think Progress and have hard data taken seriously, there's no way we can conceiveably take an editorial from lololPJ Media seriously. Srsly, that "news" group, and I only use the term "news" in the most vague of senses, makes Fox News look like leftist propaganda.

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

It was linked to give another viewpoint of the situation, not as gospel; as is this definition from a fairly liberal website that purports to be a dictionary:

A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate people to public figure status. Typically, they must either be:

a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Note the bold. This is very, very important for the public figure question to be resolved.

A single congressional appearance (Or any other singular appearance) has already been, in the past, uncontroversially held to not meet that standard. She's not been on any TV shows as has been alleged by other posters, nor did she even make a "proper" congressional appearance. As the Republicans themselves originally tried to say, "It was just a small private panel of the Democrats" when they were mocking the Democrats trying to listen to her. (Which, perhaps, leads us into the interesting quandary of, "Okay, Republicans. Was it a congressional hearing or not? 'Cause you said one thing, and now you are saying another.")

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

I would probably not watch any of the TV shows that Google says she was on.

Also noted that you didn't boldface the part; "a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Yes, and it's not relevant. It is an AND statement, Older. It requires both statements to be true.

To be specific, MLK would be considered a "public figure" due to meeting both of the criteria. But it is critical to meet both criteria, as it is quite clearly stated to be contingent on meeting both requirements. A singular appearance does not meet that threshold of the first bolded criteria.

Secondly, Sandra Fluke was on that program to rebut Rush's attacks, which, and I'll have to be blunt, is retarded to try to argue "But she was a public figure when Rush attacked her!".

Making appearances after the fact to make a rebuttal to something does not make her a public figure when it happened. Quite frankly, I seriously doubt any court would consider her a public figure considering the content of her appearances. When you take past precedent into consideration, it's pretty clear what the prior rulings on the subject have said.

TL;DR: One appearance can't make someone a public figure, and appearances after the fact cannot make someone a public figure when it happened.

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

Read my first posting: It is an "OR" statement

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

It's not, at all Olderguy.

Read it closely. The first clause applies, and then uses the later two clauses for further specificity.

fairly high threshold of public activity AND (public figure OR thrust themselves).

One appearance does not meet a "Fairly high threshold of public activity". It's the same idea as a private citizen appearing on the news for an interview once, or in an advertisement does not make them a public figure. Using the criteria you are arguing for, if you have made a single public appearance anywhere, you are now a public figure. This is obviously at odds with the actual legal ruling. A singular public appearance does not make someone a public figure - if this was the case, Brainy would be a public figure, and I could discuss at length his mentally unbalanced love of cats and why he should not be an admin because of it. (Note: This is hyperbole and not serious. Brainy's a great admin, I just had to illustrate just how poor of an argument this was.)

P.S. I lol'd at you quoting Wikipedia and tried to characterize it as fairly leftist.

y8s

iTrader: (8)

regarding comparisons of Rush Limbaugh to Bill Maher...

I'm fairly certain one of them is a comedian and one of them is DEAD SERIOUS, or at least isn't trying to get a laugh.

elesjuan

iTrader: (11)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73702.html

But I Guess it's okay since RFKjr is a democrat.


I'm not defending Rush Limbaugh here, but he's an entertainer just like that douche nozzle Bill Mahr, (who I hope dies in a bus fire tomorrow) except he [Limbaugh] makes more money and people [dumbass Democrats] seem to care about what he says for some reason. Same thing can't be said for Bill Mahr (who I still hope dies in a bush fire tomorrow.)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Well in regards to Bill Maher, I think the biggest difference is he's positioned himself for a new job, and Obama protects his own:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...m_politics_pop

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

So...Obama does what Bush did what Clinton did what...?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

apparently.