This article is about rights of privacy in dealing with celebrities. Most people don't even stop to think twice about how all of the tabloid style information is gather. It has become a normal occurrence to see private photos and to read private information about famous people. We talked about how it has become a major concern for these people and how they are getting shafted just because their name carries a price value. Those responsible for these stories and photos are the "stalkarazzi." They stop at nothing to get the best story. The argument is whether or not this is just part of their job. Since they put themselves in the limelight, must they forfeit their right of privacy? If this were to happen to a normal person it would be considered stalking and harassment. This article talks about a new "Britney Law" that will hopefully address this issue. The new law would create a personal safety zone around people. This law proposal was a reaction of Spears' recent hospitalization fiasco in which police had to escort the singer's ambulance by a barrier of police cars and helicopters in order to shield her from the paparazzi. The problem is that this will cost taxpayers $25,000. If legislators pass the proposed "Britney Law," it will be the most forceful anti-paparazzi legislation of its kind to date. If they crosses the 20-yard "personal safety bubble" without permission, the city will confiscate all profits made from any of the resultant pictures or video. This is raising concern about the first amendment though and if it is violating the right to free speech. If this law is passed it could drastically affect a lot of popular culture.
Court Rejects Suit by Iraq Veteran Over Michael Moore MovieThe article is on how easy it has been to sue over alleged defamation in non-fictional documentaries. Well, at least it has been easier than trying to sue a fictional TV show like Ravi Batra tried to do with Law and Order. But now it might not be so easy. This article talks about a case that challenges that notion. There has been a court case over whether or not Michael Moore's 2004 documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11" defamed Peter Damon who was a former U.S. Army Reserve sergeant. Damon has appeared on NBC Nightly News talking about his war injuries and treatment. Damon filed claims against Michael Moore for appropriation of name, portrait, picture, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He was mad because he felt the movie portrayed him in a false manner, making it look like he supported Moore's views. The court, however, found that the documentary couldn't be reasonably construed as a statement promotion disloyalty or denouncing either the Commander-in-Chief or the medical treatment received by veterans. This shows exactly what we talked about in dealing with defamation and how it is important that people are aware of exactly what they are putting themselves out there for. It is very easy in media for people to alter the way someone comes across and this can be a major problem since these people must live with the image that is created for them. Defamation is a very easy thing to sue for as well.
Be careful what you post onlineThis article is on how the Internet has changed the dynamic for the passing of information. With blogs and message board it has open up these "posters" to lawsuits from someone as far away as across the country. For the state of Iowa, even though their law doesnt make an explicit reference to these online forms of thought posting, it still may be considered defamation. If someone anonymously posts something that is considered defamatory towards someone else, the Internet service provider can be subpoena to give out that poster's information. Even though companies try their hardest to protect their customers information, each case is handled separately and sometimes is comes down to them being forced to give out information. If a poster is identifiable it is much easier for something to proceed with defamation charges. One example the article gives is a case where a Louisiana woman posted on online site that Sue Scheff, the founder of Parents' Universal Resource Experts, was a "crook." Apparently the two had history and when Scheff angered Bock, Bock turned to an online forum. Scheff ended up being awarded $11.3 million dollars. The article is a good example of how the easy of information sharing is going to be a problem in the future. It also shows how very few things on the Internet can be posted anonymously. People will always have a way to find out who posted what in an environment that leaves digital footprints all over.