Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (4771)	6/24/2003 6:40:12 PM
From: David Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

>>I'm depicted in two of Dobry's pix. One of which is the Miss August spread, I presume? I always knew you were a "looker". :-) Remember your depiction in Paul's "Pilot Broker"? I still have a copy laying around somewhere. Now that I think about it, Ole'49r was depicted as Jabba the Hutt. I don't think she (or Jabba) sued.....

To: Janice Shell who wrote (4771)	6/24/2003 7:16:14 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

I'm depicted in two of Dobry's pix. The context might lead others to believe that I'm involved in money laundering and the Southeast Asia drug trade. Of course I'm not, and that can easily be shown. Sooo...we've got malice. Based on that, you have no case for malice at all. Maybe there's more. But on that alone, no way.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (4771)	6/24/2003 7:47:05 PM
From: dantecristo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

Janice: I think you are wrong about what is required for a public figure to claim defamation. I believe Mr. Elgindy must show that Mr. Dobry KNOWINGLY posted his falsity. That's an even higher bar in most cases. Here's from our appellant brief: "... must demonstrate that “the defendant[s] published the report with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth.” (Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) 385 U.S. 374, 387-388 [87 S.Ct. 534, 17 L.Ed.2d 456]" geocities.com

To: Janice Shell who wrote (4771)	6/25/2003 11:34:31 PM
From: Mahatmabenfoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Janice, the fact the pix may be defamatory, but doesn't go to the narrow issue I was trying to address, which was the Illinois species of the right of publicity. Clearly Elginy is irked NOT because his face is begin used to sell something, or because his privacy has been invaded. He's irked because he doesn't like the message. That leaves room for libel, maybe (though the chance of success in this country is probably small), but it also is exactly what he CAN't use the right of publicity to to stop the pictures. The fact he is irked at the message proves there is a message -- and (subject to the libel laws, at least) is protected under the First Amendment. - Charles