To: jpl
"Curse neither the law, nor the gods, nor the wind."
Sorry, but under the law, in order to keep our strong heritage of free speech and public accountability alive, the issue of being a public figure is necessarily broad.
>You had (n)ever heard of the guy before 2002, and neither had 99.9% of us. I guarantee that this goofy judge had never heard of him before either.
Yes, but many chemists and scientists had, and they had, not because of what was "done to him," but because he had sought publicity, recognition, etc.
For example, I have no doubt that JR is a public person, not so much because he established FR, but because of use of FR's notoriety to fund raise for it, etc.
His doing so was a good and very smart thing. It gave Conservatives a voice, a method of communication, the ability to organize to petition the government, exercise our rights to speak, write and publish, and to give meaning and actionability to many other Constitutional rights.
Being a public person is not a bad thing. It is simply the price of using other liberties, other freedoms to our advantage.
20 posted on
02/05/2007 2:59:06 PM PST by
MindBender26
(Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
To: MindBender26
Sorry, but under the law, in order to keep our strong heritage of free speech and public accountability alive, the issue of being a public figure is necessarily broad. Oh, brother, you must really think you're talking to a bunch of fools or something.
This standard was invented out of judicial whole cloth in 1964 for Pete's sake, it's very much like Roe v. Wade. Congress never codifed this rubbish as a real law.
I can understand that it's probably natural for lawyers to think of Supreme Court as practically being Gods, but you might be surprised to learn that a lot of us rubes don't necessarily go along with this.
"If the law supposes that, the law is an ass".
21 posted on
02/05/2007 3:47:22 PM PST by
jpl
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson