Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

Re:Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose by thenaturalist on Sunday January 12, 2025 @08:00PM (#42678821)

You know full well that Trump is a public figure. Where I live, different protections of personal rights exist for private people, such as typically engaged on social media and public figures.

Neither is or ever was charging anyone who writes an insult online a proposed or practiced option but simply deleting derogatory comments.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose by blackeyeblitzar on Sunday January 12, 2025 @10:11PM (#42679680)

Your notion of “private people” is entirety arbitrary and is an obvious loophole for abusing the system by depriving some of their rights.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose by mandevil on Monday January 13, 2025 @01:33AM (#42680662)

And yet, it carries legal meaning in the US, thanks to NY Times v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc.

This is not GP's "notion" this is an actual thing under US law that the US Supreme Court created back in the 1960's. As with all rights, it depends on the country, but in the US Public Figure Doctrine (and the concept of a Limited Purpose Public Figure) are both real things, with a court deciding if Public Figure Doctrine applies to a given case or not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose by llm_trw on Monday January 13, 2025 @02:33AM (#42681005)

Kant must have been a hell of a philosopher that he could not only predict the laws of the US two centuries after his death, but also use them as a basis for his philosophy.

[ Parent | on HN ]