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. (Cease and desist and all that).
Would they be able to use the legal system to cause the offending
campaigner to withdraw their remarks and make restitution ?

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jethro_uk <[email protected]> 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 ?

I'm not aware of any criminal statute prohibiting that, but it is
certainly a civil violation.

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. (Cease and desist and
all that). Would they be able to use the legal system to cause the
offending campaigner to withdraw their remarks and make restitution ?

Very likely, yes.

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.

The case is even stronger for someone who is not a "public figure"
because the First Amendment protection is less. I remember a case some
years ago where a tabloid put a photo of an 80 year old woman on its
cover with the caption, "106 Year Old Gives Birth." The woman sued
because ir was false, of course. At trial the tabloid defended by saying
that everybody knows everything they print is a lie, so there was no
damage. The jury didn't agree with the defendant.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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)

On 8/20/2024 9:08 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Jethro_uk <[email protected]> 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 ?

I'm not aware of any criminal statute prohibiting that, but it is
certainly a civil violation.

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. (Cease and desist and
all that). Would they be able to use the legal system to cause the
offending campaigner to withdraw their remarks and make restitution ?

Very likely, yes.

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.

The case is even stronger for someone who is not a "public figure"
because the First Amendment protection is less. I remember a case some
years ago where a tabloid put a photo of an 80 year old woman on its
cover with the caption, "106 Year Old Gives Birth." The woman sued
because ir was false, of course. At trial the tabloid defended by saying that everybody knows everything they print is a lie, so there was no
damage. The jury didn't agree with the defendant.

Yeah, old thread but....

I can tell you that not *everything* in the tabloids is totally
made-up/fake as I was actually the subject of a story in the National
Examiner back in the early 90's. I won't go into details on the
specifics of it and I will say that it was distorted drastically but
there was an element of truth to it.

Think of a story like "I'm carrying an alien's baby." The woman would
actually be pregnant but the "it was a little grey guy that got me
pregnant" was more like "I hooked up with this dude in costume at
Comi-con" or such. There's often some kernel of truth buried deep within
the fake details (sometimes truth really IS stranger than fiction.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/10/2025 11:31 AM, Mike Anderson wrote:

On 8/20/2024 9:08 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Jethro_uk <[email protected]> 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 ?

I'm not aware of any criminal statute prohibiting that, but it is
certainly a civil violation.

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. (Cease and desist and
all that). Would they be able to use the legal system to cause the
offending campaigner to withdraw their remarks and make restitution ?

Very likely, yes.

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.

The case is even stronger for someone who is not a "public figure"
because the First Amendment protection is less.  I remember a case some
years ago where a tabloid put a photo of an 80 year old woman on its
cover with the caption, "106 Year Old Gives Birth."  The woman sued
because ir was false, of course.  At trial the tabloid defended by saying >> that everybody knows everything they print is a lie, so there was no
damage.  The jury didn't agree with the defendant.

Yeah, old thread but....

I can tell you that not *everything* in the tabloids is totally
made-up/fake as I was actually the subject of a story in the National Examiner back in the early 90's. I won't go into details on the
specifics of it and I will say that it was distorted drastically but
there was an element of truth to it.

Think of a story like "I'm carrying an alien's baby." The woman would actually be pregnant but the "it was a little grey guy that got me
pregnant" was more like "I hooked up with this dude in costume at
Comi-con" or such. There's often some kernel of truth buried deep within
the fake details (sometimes truth really IS stranger than fiction.)

The National Enquirer in particular has broken numerous legit news items
in the midst of their alien abduction stories. The one that always
comes to my mind first was the John Edwards scandal, but they also broke numerous others involving Bill Cosby, Gary Hart, OJ Simpson and others.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)