Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Well, if it was a shopped photo of you, pretending you had an incontinence problem you might feel offended.

But unlike you, i don't presume that being offended is sufficient cause to lodge a legal complaint.

Of course if they used a picture of me, I would lodge a complaint that they are using my likeness without my permission. But the Pope can't do that, because the Pope is a public figure, and it is generally accepted (and perfectly sensible) jurisprudence that public figures do not have the same protection against having their likeness used as private individuals do.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:12:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The implicit statement that you have an incontinence problem would be a violation of your privacy and that's a reason to sue. Nothing to do with being a public figure. Of course in the case of a picture in a publication that has the word "satire magazine" on the front page that's a bit silly, but in principle...
by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:55:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, satire of public figures really actually is different from mockery of private individuals.

Again, you deliberately skip over the balance of power in the underlying relationship. You and I need to be protected from the press, because the press has more power than we do. The Pope does not need to be protected from the press, because the Pope has as much or more power than the press.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:10:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are inventing the rules you would like to see implemented again. Legally this is not so. A public figure must accept that more of his/her life is published, but not everything.
by Katrin on Mon Sep 3rd, 2012 at 10:52:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In this case we're not talking about publishing actual details of the actual pope's intestinal issues, but obvious satire - which certainly is protected by free speech laws in most of the West.

The images weren't slanderous, libellous, or an invasion of privacy, so I'm not sure why you think any of those legal principles might apply.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Sep 3rd, 2012 at 11:23:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Probably. The pictures are not yet back online, though. That makes me wonder. Titanic employs fabulous lawyers.
by Katrin on Mon Sep 3rd, 2012 at 11:26:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A public figure must accept that more of his/her life is published, but not everything.

That is true, and perfectly consistent with what I said.

However, one of the things a public figure is not protected from is caricature.

Which is as it should be.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Sep 3rd, 2012 at 11:25:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series