| |
Who, me? Technically, if I recall at least, the definition of a public person is one who uses, or intends to use, their persona in any form of commercial promotion, entertainment (the arts) or in the political arena. Spouses of politicians are almost always involved in campaigning, so they almost always are fair game, but spouses of "famous" business people are not. I'm not sure what the media-recognized threshold is, but from a slander and libel point of view, I think it hinges on the person's intent to "be" a public figure.
In other words, if you own a furniture store or car dealership and you do your own awful, tacky, screaming ads, you are a public person. If you own the store and hire someone to do the awful, tacky screaming ads, you're not. You go on Jerry Springer (assuming you're not a member of the Screen Actors Guild) and you forfeit your claim to being a "private person." If you get yourself involved in charitable events or trade associations and get a few pictures in the paper, you pretty much end up as a public person.
On the legal entanglement side, unless you are involved in a matter "of public record," i.e., divorce, lawsuit, criminal charges, etc., you have the right to be left alone and have a fairly clear right to privacy. But once matters like that reach the media, the line starts to stretch, particularly if you respond or seek out publicity.
Whether Michelle is a "public person" is beyond my scope - the web is another brave new world. Is a web site "promotion?" It might be. The nuance of not having it listed with any search engine - well, I can't say -- mine is not to be considered a "legal" opinion, either.
My recollection is from a family situation some years ago.
Mr. K. |
|
