What is a Public Figure?

Exactly, and at the time I wouldn't even have been considered a "public figure" since I was brand new and had said very little. Now though . . . well, I've said a lot.

But within our small universe here - analagous to the small town Jake posits - we have our little stars, our loudmouths, our oddball characters, and so forth, that "everyone" knows. Anyone who participates regularly in the forums of any online game automatically gains a certain amount of known-ness.

At this stage of the game, with enough of my views known and with myself well enough known to everyone on the forums, then I am, for all practical purposes in our small universe, a public figure. In fact, anyone I have read regularly on these forums I also consider a public figure. Some are more than others, of course. But we all - by virtue of our willing participation not only in the game, but on the forums, in inworld town halls, and so forth - become public figures, whether we like it or not.

coco

So is Jake in favor of that. And for obvious reasons - the disconnect between the truly businesslike aspects of the game, including the need for contracts, for representation, and all of that, as opposed to how we must actually do it, is probably almost entirely due to our enforced anonymity.

However, I wouldn't be in favor of that. This way I can just have fun running a fun business without it getting all serious and real-worldy.

coco

MJ, that site is great. Out of curiousity, I did my rl name (which is not very common) versus my SL name. I wasn't shocked by the results. A lot of hits are probably from articles I have written for real world publications.

Katt Kongo: 16,700 results
My real name: 159,000

I tried to post a screenie, but kept getting an error message.

Yeah it would be but ther really is no bright line distinction. This is espcially true because one significant factor is what is said. I mean a defmation suit arises because I say "Aimee Webber wears green panties" and Aimee says that she is insulted and defamed because I say she wears green panties. Now if aimee Weber actually does wear green panties, then I am safe because truth is always a defense.

However Aimee Weber might be very angry about my defamatory remark, and maybe she does not wear green panties at all. So she sues me for defamation. Now I can assert that my speech is protected because aimee weber is a public figure, and the first amendment protects might right to express my opinions about public figures. Aimee will say no, I am not apublic figure for purposes of what panties I wear because even though I am a well known business owner, and I regulary voice and advertise my opinions about Sl and fashion in the forums, the color of my panties is my business.

Now I will respond oh, but aimee sells panties, and amie advocates that SL avatars should only wear purple panties, and the fact that she allegedly wears green panties is significant, even if its not true.

Aimee says no, *Preen* does not sell panties, and I have never advocated one panty color over another.

I then say but wait, everyone knows Aimee weber, she is in all these interviews and her picture is all over SL. Her importance to SL is so great that all her actions impact SL, and LL may be heavily influenced by any decision she makes. Thus the color of aimee wenber's panties is critical to SL, because aimee is a public figure.

Well the court is going balance out the importance of the speech aimee webber is trying to stop (that she wears green panties) against the right of expression and aimee's right to privacy. Really the test becomes somewhat result oriented. If wearing purple and not green panties is a critical issue, then aimee may well be a public figure, if however panties are a non-issue the chances are aimee will be found to be alimited public figure.

This analysis would be radically different however if we used Cubey Terra, because a court might find that for purposes of panties, Cubey Terra, despite being reasonbly successful and famous is not a public figure.

Now Willow Zander is known to a lot of people here, but her conversatiosn on the boards are by and large in the character of personal chat. She conributes to the forums, but really does not, on the whole rise to the level of SL public figure. So if willow makes one post about how purple panties are oppressive, she is just voicing an opinion. How every if she starts a crusade to outlaw the evil empire of purple pnaties, and starts threads and subverts threads, and then goes and buys a sim against purple panties, she has thrust her self into the maelstorm of the debate on purple panties and has made herself a public figure.

Oh, certainly so. What you say is truth. I don't see the conflict, though - I often do a lot of Devil's Advocating, but I make it damn clear that's what I'm doing.

I don't appear to take a solid stand and then go "oh, I was just trolling/trying to get a reaction". That's being a jerk, in my book.

Once again some great input, Jake. It's rather handy to have an actual lawyer on hand for this kinda stuff. At some point you should explain "actual malice." (perhaps another thread at another time)

Interesting analysis.

I think, by that measure, speculation regarding how someone like Rathe Underthorn is effecting purchases in the global land market is completely reasonable.

I have met a female lawyer in SL who appears as a regular legal commentator on CNN, FOX, Larry King and other networks, and I also met a Hollywood film maker in SL, and a member of a British rock Band. You would recognize the real life names of these people.

Cool can I speculate if you're Prokofy or not?

Left shoe, Right shoe, six one, half dozen the other?

Well in SL they aren't public figures. lol The real question is do they read the forums?

Excuse me. Um, where do you hang out in SL?

Well, if you're any kind of public figure (limited, etc.) and someone sets out to defame you solely to defame you, knowing that it will hurt your standing in the community, etc., they've gone a long way towards actual malice. Accidentally defaming a public figure would be more of a "my bad" situation than an actual malice situation. That's why the NYT case makes the distinction.

Issues of intent are always messy but fun to discuss as theoretical wanking.

Well, so is the whole public figure issue, really. What'd be really funny about a defamation case arising from SL would be the opinion issued by the court. Reading how judges explain various technology amuses me. Aside from explaining what SL *is*, it'd also be interesting to see how issues of jurisdiction would play out. If someone from another country or state has availed themselves of the services LL provides, does that create personal jurisdiction in the forum state? What about Federal courts? It's just kind of fun stuff to think about after a few drinks.

On that note, my friend James Beam and I have some work to do.

Or you've met people that pretend to be those, and lie about who they are. Remember, the internet is full of people pretending to be what they are not.

I realize that this was so not your point, but I want to steal this image for future use.

Denkyouberrymush.