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.
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.
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.