This is one of the reasons why social media that forces you to use your real name is so dangerous to US citizens and its something that 99.9% of the populace doesn't understand. 

When Jane Smith post a picture of her breakfast on facebook, she doesn't realize that she is crossing the line between private - public persona.

Yes. Basically `Anti-SLAPP`. I'd say Germany needs this.

optimism

Fascinating!  Thanks for this.  It would seem like a very hazy line between public / private, and who crosses over, and why.  Like, what counts as a public statement could be argued over.  Posting on Twitter, for instance?  Hmm.

elvismercury

While I do feel that a lot of higher profile people that get in trouble with the law over this are doing it on purpose though, because headlines, the imbalance is a serious issue. Especially since politicians are using this all the time against their critics.

The US solves this issue via the concept of "public vs private person".

Essentially being a "public person" means you largely give up your rights to slander / defamation since the concept is you willingly put yourself in the public sphere, thus there is a 'public ownership' portion of that...this mirrors in law the same idea that its not illegal to film someone on a public street.

Whereas a "private person" is one that still retains their ability to sue for slander / defamation.

The basic litmus test for public vs private is "making public statements", so that includes things like public speeches, writing articles, etc.

I know a very rich family who are very insistent on protecting their "private stature" as it relates to the law. Like even if they donate money to a charity and the charity wants to honor them by asking them to say a few words at their meeting, they refuse.

ideasfromtheedge

Is censorship really this bad now in Germany?

Signal312

> While I do feel that a lot of higher profile people that get in trouble with the law over this are doing it on purpose though, because headlines, the imbalance is a serious issue. Especially since politicians are using this all the time against their critics.
> 

The US solves this issue via the concept of "public vs private person". 

Essentially being a "public person" means you largely give up your rights to slander / defamation since the concept is you willingly put yourself in the public sphere, thus there is a 'public ownership' portion of that...this mirrors in law the same idea that its not illegal to film someone on a public street. 

Whereas a "private person" is one that still retains their ability to sue for slander / defamation. 

The basic litmus test for public vs private is "making public statements", so that includes things like public speeches, writing articles, etc. 

I know a very rich family who are very insistent on protecting their "private stature" as it relates to the law. Like even if they donate money to a charity and the charity wants to honor them by asking them to say a few words at their meeting, they refuse.