这么严格啊？也是，英国不能跟美国比。:)

第一页就有美国名人在美国打官司，胜诉。但你又会说他们不算名人，你严格嘛。:P

To support your points, you need to offer us some details. No jury and judge will accept the words "go to google". Please don't think it's easy to challenge US Supreme Court's rulings. Study please:

------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Figures

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

[url] http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html [/url]

Dustin Hoffman won $3 million from a Los Angeles fashion magazine for a Tootsie takeoff.

Nice try again. Is this a libel or defamation involved case? Is free speech one of the key elements in the lawsuit? What is the court ruling on this specific case? Lack of these details, it provides little evidence to support your argument that public figures’ privacy or fame can prevail one of the fundamentals of the United States, the freedom of speech.

I knew you would be distinguishing libel from defamation. you are really rigid. You can thus define everything in your favor. You won.

抄段定义来：

libel and slander

libel and slander, in law, types of defamation. In common law, written defamation was libel and spoken defamation was slander. Today, however, there are no such clear definitions. Permanent forms of defamation, such as the written or pictorial, are usually called libel, while the spoken or gestured forms are called slander.

The term libel is also often used if a wide audience for the defamation is possible. Courts have split over which category radio and television are in; today's statutes generally categorize defamation occurring in those media as slander. The offenses are alike in several respects. The defamation—essentially exposure to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or pecuniary loss—must directly affect the reputation of a living person.

廖君，

我们在讨论一个重要的美国法律问题，不是争什么个人输赢。在公众人物的隐私、
名誉权和公众媒体的自由表达权相互冲突时，法律绝对站在后者方面，为的就是维
护美国宪法第一修正案的言论自由权。高等法院１９６４的判决已经明确表达了它
的立场。这是没有什么好争论的。见我上面的＃２８、＃３３帖。

回到这次伊甸事件的起源，你可以指责逸士对老谋子、杨振宁不厚道，但是却没有
足够的法律依据断定他犯了诽谤罪。如果真的上法庭打官司，你必输无疑。

我可没想打官司。你让我找美国的公众人物诽谤罪胜诉案例，我找到Dustin Hoffman。你说defamation不是libel，我找来法律定义说libel是defamation的一种。仅此而已。

针对这个案例，法庭判决可曾用过“诽谤”等字眼？我粗粗看了看，觉得这应该是
一个肖像权案件，而不是“诽谤”或者“名誉”。你如果有新的发现，不妨拿上来
继续讨论。

你怎么翻译defamation？

Hoffman 最后并没有赢得这个官司嘛，不但三百万没到手，律师费也打了水漂。

况且，这个案例和我们这次讨论的“诽谤与言论自由”问题无关，因为没有涉及任何
“诽谤”内容。这基本上是一个“商业肖像权与言论自由”案件。

Dustin Hoffman Loses Appeals Court Case

A federal appeals court has reversed a $3 million award to Dustin Hoffman levied against Los Angeles magazine, ruling that a computer-altered image of the actor was protected speech.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco said on Friday that the image, published in 1997, did not unlawfully use Mr. Hoffman's name and likeness. The panel said the photo was not an ''exploitative commercial'' use as Mr. Hoffman contended and a federal judge ruled two years ago.

The court said the photo, which was displayed with other captions and altered images of different actors, was editorial speech protected under the First Amendment.

[url] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/09/business/mediatalk-dustin-hoffman-loses-appeals-court-case.html [/url]