[WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected

Thu May 5 23:13:16 UTC 2005

slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

>On 5/5/05, David Gerard <fun at 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