Quote:
Originally Posted by jal300
Merely accusing someone of a wrong doing or criminal act isn't necessarily defamation. That said; being accused of a crime (a high profile crime) can make you a public figure (albeit involuntarily). Most of us didn't know who Charles Manson was before he was arrested/charged, thus he became an involuntary public figure (arguably) based on being charged with serious crimes (being charged is basically being accused). At that point any potential defamation should have to meet the higher bar, in my opinion. Going back to MP; I don't think anyone really knew who he was prior to Veronica going public: thus (albeit I could be wrong) no one was really saying anything (publicly) about MP that really could be defamatory.
There's a lot wrong here.
1. Falsely accusing someone of a criminal act is not only generally defamatory, it's defamation per se in most states, meaning you don't have to prove damages. (The exception is some people may be "defamation-proof". So, for instance, falsely accusing OJ Simpson of a crime might not be actionable if his reputation is already as a violent criminal who got a way with murder.)
2. We are not sure that there is even such a thing as an "involuntary public figure". The Supreme Court defined a limited purpose public figure as someone who voluntarily injects themselves into a public issue or concern.
It is THEORIZED that perhaps someone as notable as a Manson might be an involuntary public figure. But the cases are in conflict as to whether that is true, and in general, the rule is you CANNOT be a public figure merely because of what others say about you, absent some sort of voluntary accession to publicity.
3. Postle is a classic limited purpose public figure as to Stones' live streams, because he voluntarily appeared on those streams, gave interviews, tweeted, and otherwise sought publicity as to that limited purpose.