On 8/20/2024 3:26 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:31:42 -0700 (PDT), Jethro_uk wrote:
If a politician in active campaigning mode, by some means whether
intentionally dishonest or a genuine misunderstanding suggests in a
"publication" (covering TV, internet etc) that a specifically named
individual who has celebrity in their own right has somehow "endorsed"
their campaign in any degree, could an offense have been committed ?
Being a non lawyer (with a lifestyle to match) I can only think that the
independent celebrity could argue that the claimed association is in some
way defamatory ? With all that entails.
It would depend on the facts of the case, including the type of
celebrity, and whether an ordinary person could reasonably believe
that the candidate was being endorsed.
The bar for an action in libel or slander is pretty high when the
plaintiff is a public figure. The plaintiff must show "actual
malice", a term of art that means the defendant either knew that the statements in question were false or acted in reckless disregard of
whether they were true or false. (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376
U.S. 254 (1964))
If we remove the celebrity element, could an ordinary citizen also pursue
remedy ? Say their image was used without their permission to suggest
they endorse a particular candidate.
"Actual malice" is a requirement only when the libelee is a public
figure. While it would turn on the facts either way, a plaintiff who
is not a public figure will find it easier to make a case.
It can also be pretty hard to show damages in a case like this since the celebrity in question can simply make a public statement disavowing the
implied or explicit endorsement. In point of fact, some celebrities may actually see their careers helped by a false endorsement since it gains
more publicity for them and/or could makes them seem like victims.
Another problem here is that politicians (at least in the US) are known
to exaggerate, stretch the facts, and, yes, even outright lie sometimes (often). So what's the bigger sin - politician A falsely claiming that celebrity X supports them, or politician B making a false claim about
something they say they accomplished in the past which they didn't? Or
what about politician C who claims they will do such and such when
elected (reduce taxes, let's say, or pass some legislation) even though
they have no intention of actually doing that. Indeed, one can argue
that claiming you have a celebrity endorsement when you don't is
probably a much less impactful statement than promising to take some
kind of executive action you have no intention of doing.
Politicians nowadays are essentially performers reading lines. My two
cents is you can't really vote for someone based merely on the words
they say because the words they say, in most cases, are carefully
scripted and designed to paint themselves in the best possible light.
You really have to vote for someone based on what you think they will do
when in office, and you do that based on the person's past actions.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)