Yeah, that’s kinda what I was wondering.
If I were to pick a random private citizen, and write a bunch of crap about them, does that make them into a public figure, which justifies my writing a bunch of crap about them?
Does the fact that someone has a relative that is a public figure make them into one?
Hunter isn’t a politician or celebrity, all of his “fame” is foisted upon him by others.
Under what grounds?
On the grounds that he has achieved pervasive fame.
Even if he weren’t the son of a sitting president, he’d still likely be considered a public figure both for his business enterprises and for his artwork.
Republicans are no doubt praying for such a lawsuit, to be drawn out over at least the next couple of years.
There’s a venerable tradition of family members embarrassing Presidents, dating at least back to John Quincy Adams, whose son John was supposedly thrown out of Harvard for drinking and partying.
I like the stories about Teddy Roosevelt’s daughter Alice partying with her pet snake.
The champion is probably Billy Carter. His escapades included being a registered agent of the Libyan government (and being paid handsomely for it), provoking an investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of whose members at the time was Joe Biden.
Maybe Hunter Biden can emulate Billy Carter and start his own brand of beer, Hunter Hops.
And that counts even if it was foisted on him without him wanting it?
So, are all business owners and artists public figures? If not, then why is he?
Do you really think that anyone would have ever heard of him if it weren’t for Joe Biden’s run for president? You say “Even if he weren’t the son of a sitting president” which indicates that any (adult) relative of any public figure becomes fair game.
Sasha and Malia, Obama’s daughters, are adults now. Are they public figures by virtue of who their father is? Malia would have been an adult for the last 6 months of Obama’s term.
The first time you did it, they would not have been a public figure, so the higher standard would not have applied.
It can. Consider the Kennedys.
In Hunter’s case, there are lots of things that could have put him in the public figure category. Did he stump for his daddy? Did he give any interviews? Did he lobby to advance his business dealings? Did he use his privilege or position to advance a message or an idea?
And, of course, there is the fame that was foisted upon him. Even if involuntary, famous people are still public figures.
That would be for a court to decide, but probably, yeah. If they can manage to stay out of the public eye for a decade or so, they might lose that designation. I believe that Amy Carter is currently pursuing that goal.
And this is part of why this is such bullshit. The US needs to sort this out.
At this point, you’ve got a system in which anyone who runs a media empire can malign anyone they want, consequence free.
Like anything else, it can be abused. But our current system does a pretty good job of protecting private citizens while supporting the public interest.
Do you have in mind a better way that would sort it out without sacrificing either?
Allow someone to decide whether or not they want to be a public figure, not have it foisted on them by others.
If someone runs for an office: Public figure. If someone is a celebrity due to their voluntary participation in public performances: Public figure.
If someone commits some heinous crimes, then maybe that makes them a public figure as well.
If someone wants to live their life, run some businesses, maybe make a little bit of art (though the art thing only came about after it was decided that he was a public figure, so really shouldn’t count towards making him one), and not somehow change who they are related to, then: Private citizen.
With the current system, private citizens have no protection from a malicious media.
That’s more or less the way it is now. As to the foisted on them argument, the courts do take into consideration whether the person is attempting to stay out of the public eye in deciding whether or not they are a public figure. But practically everybody in that situation has given the interviews and made the public statements and used their involuntary fame to champion some cause. Hunter certainly has.
Joe had two sons and two daughters.
Guess which one is the bad seed?
It’s taken a year for the media to finally accept that Hunter’s laptop is legit. Apparently there is a lot of very strong evidence of drug use and sleeze.
I’m hoping Daddy Joe was just naive. His good son Beau dies a horrific death from cancer. It’s understandable that Joe has a weak spot for troubled Hunter.
Maybe not so much:
The only cause that Hunter used his fame for was for his art, and that only came well after he was involuntarily thrust into the public eye, at which point, why not?
When I opened my business, the local paper came out and interviewed me, used a bit of that interview in a piece about local businesses. Am I now a public figure?
Not naive, he’s aware of Hunter’s drug problems, he has talked about them rather extensively.
Now, he’s not as condemning of him as those who hate everything about anything Biden, but that’s not the the same as being naive.
That’s sufficient, but he’s also come out to describe his battle with addiction and to support his father’s presidency.
How about letting judges make actual judgements about if someone is being malicious, the same as with other legal issues, rather than enshrining it in law that somehow, this is different.
Other countries manage to do this, but of course The U.S. Is Special™.
If you ever do anything worthy of becoming a public figure, you might not be able to present yourself in court as striving to maintain a private life. But no, one little interview doesn’t usually make you a public figure.
Don’t get confused with the generic malice and the legal term actual malice. As I said above, the decision was deliberate. That’s largely because public figures generally have more resources to fight and more means of repairing the damage after it’s done than do more private figures. So it’s less harmful to them.
Putting aside everything else, why doesn’t Hunter Biden have Hunter Biden’s laptop?
My understanding is that he left a laptop at a computer repair shop, and after a year, the shop became the owner.