Fame and Liability

Libel Cases Liable is one way of preventing, someone from making false claims about another person. At the heart of these cases, is a focus on having varying degrees of proof. This means that private citizens have lower standards for demonstrating the damage that was caused (i.e. negligence). While more famous public figures and celebrities have higher benchmarks they must reach in providing their cases (i.e. strict liability). These differences are designed to give specific benefits to one group of people over others.

The problem is that a double standard exists in the legal system, by providing favoritism to someone based upon the fact that they are not famous. Years ago, these guidelines made sense, through giving the public more leeway in preventing damage to their reputations, income and standards of living. However, the rise of the 24-hour news cycle is highlighting how these concepts have become relics of the past. This enables news organizations to harass and criticize anyone who is a celebrity or public figure.

The main argument is based upon the U.S. Supreme Court decision New York Times v. Sullivan. It outlined two basic standards which can be used to demonstrate how someone falls into one of these categories (i.e. pervasive and vortex public figures). The most notable include: If the individual is actively involved in public affairs (such as: politicians and anyone in elected office). If they are throwing themselves into the spotlight, in order to influence the outcome of various issues and the debate.

These areas are problematic, as they have been liberally interpreted to include anyone who is famous. Yet, they may not be actively involved in the public affairs. Instead, they could be an actor, musician, model or producer / director. This allows news organizations to harass and publish material which is not true. In many cases, they will make slanderous statements and use New York Times v. Sullivan to defend their actions. In these situations, plaintiffs should not be required to overcome the larger standard for burden of proof.

This is because they are not trying to influence the political debate. Instead, they are individuals who have fame. Yet, they are entitled to greater amounts of privacy and protection against slanderous accusations. This can be accomplished by allowing them to use the negligence standard for proving their case. Under the law, this can occur by showing how the defendant engaged in irresponsible statements through: talking about the individual in public and not having any kind of proof to support their claims.

If this standard was applied to celebrities, it will hold news organizations responsible for their actions. This will give them greater amounts of privacy in the process. However, if the person is actively involved in public affairs, is when the higher standards of strict liability should apply. This is because they are thrusting themselves into the public debate and they are trying to influence its outcome. For example, when George Clooney discusses his views on the upcoming Presidential election, he should be held to these guidelines.

This is because he is actively campaigning for a specific side and is using his celebrity to influence the outcome. In these kinds of situations, a new category should be created that is looking at if the individual is utilizing their fame to engage in political related activities. In Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, the Supreme Court upheld the case precedent from New York Times v. Sullivan. They determined that the standard of liable must be maintained for anyone who is in the public eye.

This is irresponsible, as the news outlet made false claims about a celebrity. Once they were acquitted, they sued the organization, claiming how it not checking its facts and made statements they knew was not true. The court determined; that news organizations are entitled to higher standards in order to protect free speech. This creates a sense of irresponsibility by enabling the press to say anything and hide behind the First Amendment. As a result, the decision does not make any sense.

Instead, it enables the news media to engage in slanderous behavior by not having any kind of proof to backup their claims. This is in spite of the fact that the person may not have anything to do with politics or related events. Instead, they are someone who is famous and subject to these kinds of false accusations. In the future, this will lead to even more aggressive behavior by news organizations who are seeking out the next big story.

Their objectives are to be the first to report sensationalism, versus ensuring that everything is factually accurate. These actions are becoming more brazen with them using the paparazzi and.