 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | reply to cableties
Re: CEOs need better security Sorry, but I think this guy crossed the line from free speech to Disorderly Conduct.
Speaking your mind in a newspaper, on a blog, on TV, or on the Internet is free speech.
Going to someones home with a bullhorn and harassing them is, well harassment. A CEO, while a well known individual is not a public figure, but a private citizen. He has the same right to be left alone as everyone else. Whether or not you believe his corporation is doing enough to protect your privacy rights is not grounds for making an ass of yourself.
Keep in mind he's not the only person in that house. His wife and children are most likely suffering at the hands of this idiocy.
Do we have a right to free speech in this country? Certainly. But, your rights end when they trespass on the rights of another citizen. You have the right to express yourself and your viewpoints, but you don't have the right to tell someone to go F#$C themselves in public, and certainly not at their home.
This douchebag deserves a summons for Disorderly Conduct and a court date.....
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | said by N3OGH: A CEO, while a well known individual is not a public figure, but a private citizen. That's not for you to decide but a court of law. You may want to refresh your knowledge of what the legal definition of a public figure is before you go spouting off about who is and is not, counselor.
PUBLIC FIGURE - A term usually used in the context of libel and defamation actions where the standards of proof are higher if the party claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove defamatory statements were made with actual malice. Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 666-668. The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345. A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, Bruno & Stillman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co. (1st Cir. 1980) 633 F.2d 583, 589, a standard ensuring that reasonable minds may differ on this subject. Advertisements themselves are not usually sufficient to transform someone into a public figure. Vegod Corp. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 763, 770 [a person in the business world advertising his wares does not necessarily become part of an existing public controversy]; Rancho La Costa, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 646, 661 [advertising is not thrusting oneself into the vortex of a controversy].
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
|
|
|
|
1 edit | reply to N3OGH
He *is* a public figure. |
|
| not to mention but last i knew the right to free speech was to be insured from a government vs the people stand point.
--
my site |
|
N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | reply to sonicmerlin
Yeah, name calling makes effective arguments. 
And his wife and children? Are they public figures?
What if that was YOUR wife and children enduring this crap?
I'm sure your viewpoint would be radically different.
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | reply to major marco
"That's not for you to decide but a court of law."
Precisely why my original post states this moron deserves a summons and a COURT DATE.
The fact that this is not a libel case (a civil matter) but a harassment case (a criminal matter) means there is a different standard.
Hey, you can be against everything that is corporate America MANNNNNN you can operate under the notion that greedy CEO's are evil MANNNNNNNN. But for Christ sake, how about NOT endorsing the idea of harassing people in their private homes?
Oh, BTW I'm not a lawyer, so please don't call me counselor....
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
| reply to N3OGH
said by N3OGH:Yeah, name calling makes effective arguments. And his wife and children? Are they public figures? What if that was YOUR wife and children enduring this crap? I'm sure your viewpoint would be radically different. Ivan should go get a job as a regular old Verizon tech -- supposedly he used to do that. Then he wouldn't be so high profile and wouldn't have had this guy come and talk in front of his house. Remember, it's a free country. He doesn't HAVE to be a CEO. |
|
| reply to N3OGH
Lighten up, Francis! |
|
N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Ya know, I often tell people that.
Thanks, I will take it to heart 
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
