The Michael Schumacher Career/Injury/Recovery Thread

NewsNow.co.uk > The UK's #1 news portal

This link was posted earlier. If you want the late breaking news and speculation its a good digest.

 

In the same manner that non-physicians should refrain from offering medical opinions on this thread, non-practicing lawyers should do the same.

You are totally wrong in your statement that the law recognizes celebrities, such as actors/actresses and athletes as being public figures. They have never been recognized as such under the law. You throw out the term "legal precedent" and cite defamation cases as an example. I have tried several high profile defamation cases, including those involving high-profile Formula 1 personalities, and I can assure you that celebrities and athletes, even at the Formula 1 level, do not lose the right to privacy that is surrendered by persons engaged in the political arena. I challenge you, or anyone else on this forum who claims that somehow Michael Schumacher has come under the legal definition of "public figure", to cite one case that holds otherwise.

To argue that Michael and his family have lost their ability to keep Michael's medical information private, based on his alleged "public figure" status, is patently absurd.

 

This thread officially went full retard.

You should never go full retard.

 

+1

 

Really? Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the relevant authorities on the subject.

You should start Huster Magazine v. Falwell, where a preacher on TV was considered a public figure.

Next, try Westmorland v. CBS, where an Army General was a public figure.

Maybe you should check the case of Steven Hatfill, a scientist at the center of an Anthrax controversy. Hatfill was considered a public figure and therefore lost his action against the NY Times.

How about this one . . . George Zimmerman was not a public figure before his trial, and he was acquitted. Now, however, legal scholars (these are people who actually know the law) would consider Zimmerman a public figure, even though he did not seek the spotlight.

George Zimmerman Verdict Gives New Wrinkle to Libel Case Against NBC | Variety

The first 3 above, I did from memory. The Zimmerman case, I remembered the article and had to google it.

I rest my case.

 

I just phoned a friend. He said to add these:

Wayne Newton v. NBC. Newton's award for defamation was overturned since Newton was a public figure.

David Beckham sued 'In Touch' magazine for printing that he slept with a prostitute. Beckhan sued and a federal judge in LA tossed the case, since Beckham was a public figure.

Anita Wood Brewer, former girlfriend of Elvis. The opinion on the case is pretty wide open:

"Anita's relationship with Presley was not, and probably could not have been, kept out of the press. This relationship coincided with a portion of her career as an entertainer and it appears that during this time she invited press coverage, at least for her career. Further, as discussed above, her relationship with Presley advanced her career and it is clear from the exhibits that much press coverage focused both on the relationship and on her career, some items detailing a purported connection between these two aspects of her life.

"Anita Wood Brewer who had gained media exposure and fame through her career and her romantic relationship with Presley, an extremely well-known entertainer, and whose name continued to appear in stories about Presley after her retirement . . . ."

 

Quick question. Who died and made you king of the world?

This is a public forum and people can post what they want as long as it meets the applicable rules.

 

As a physician who routinely cares for gravely ill patients, but more importantly as a human, I cannot imagine anyone believing they have the right to updates on Michael Schumacher's condition. Even if one believes, as I do, that he is a public figure, that status doesn't obligate his family to release any information whatsoever.

 

That's what a caring and rational human being would think.

What's that got to do with fchat

 

I reckon this thread should be closed, too many conflicting standards among posters seems to be creating disunity in all our great wishes for Michael.

 

For the record, I am a member of the bar in 3 states. Although my primary business is investment management, I practice law every day. It is an essential part of my daily activity with my investors.

 

+1

 

I was at a Academy Sports + Outdoors today looking for a cleaning kit & some ammo, an older man & his wife were trying to find 9mm for his wife & I explained that's it hard to come by as of this moment it will be in very limited supply.

When I was turning away he then mentioned Michael Schumacher's current condition to me, at first I didn't know what brought that subject up until I realized I was wearing my FCA 50th anniversary shirt, had for I'd put it one this morning. We went back into a conversation about Michael, really nice folks. It amazed me to find more people /F1 fans that care & know of his current condition even if it's the gun isle.

 

As I have said before, the family is free to maintain their silence. And there are those on this board who are free to support that choice.

But this comes with a price--that price is speculation and uninformed opinions. If the family chooses silence, then it must understand that Michael's high profile public profile will cause a number of people to speculate and engage in rumors. Their silence is feeding that monster right now.

 

+1 on closing the thread.

Any meaningful info stopped 1000+ posts ago. Just nonsense banter now.

Either way I'm unsubscribing.

 

Then why did you stay until now?,lol I have never seen a bunch of old ,whining women then on this forum and especially this thread..Jebus ..Michaels family could give a rats azz about
what we think of him or his family and the info they give or dont give, why is that so hard for some of you to understand? They are under crisis.!!!
If you want solid information get off your dead azzes and check the million other sport,google and whatever sites out there and stop relying on this thread......

 

Why would anyone 'announce' they're unsubscribing? Why would anyone get annoyed with someone who's speculating? Asking for information from the family? or anything else, for that matter?

I think it's weird that anyone thinks they're owed anything by MS or his family, but it's their opinion, and they're welcome to it.

Too many fragile egos I think.

Also, why would this thread need to be closed? Sometimes, amongst all the BS, there's some interesting reading.

Like this post, for example

 

You just answered your own question

 

Hey Big Tex, gotta call you soon man ....

 

Leave him alone. He knows what he's doing.

 

I am not sure in what states you practice law and what the quality of their judicial system is, but how are those cases relevant?

This is not about a family unsuccesfully sueing the media for printing personal stuff about Michael Schumacher. This is about a family deciding for themselves how to deal with this and whether or not to feed information to the press on a regular base.

You seem to be under the impression that there lies some kind of obligation on the family to keep us, the public, informered. Let me tell you, no such obligation exists and not a single one of the cases you mentioned leads to a different conclusion. And yes, I practice law as well.

 

The debate that sparked that post is pretty simple - some claim Michael is not a public figure, some believe that he is. It is really unquestionable that he is.

Anyway, regardless whether he is or not, the family certainly have rights to withhold his medical information. I am not sure anyone has disagreed on that point. The issue is whether or not that is the correct decision, which many including myself would state it is definitely not.

I have been thinking a lot about this and I believe that Corinna's dislike for the media itself is fueling this information blackout. They were not always favorable to her husband and it can be difficult to read negative pieces in the news about someone you care for deeply - true or not - so she is not someone that is likely to embrace the idea of engaging this group she loathes during an even more difficult situation. It is because of this that I believe his fans are being largely left in the dark and it's a shame.

>8^)
ER

 

Very well said. I totally agree with all you have written. There is no obligation for the family to say anything but IF they did it would put an end to all this speculation. I am afraid that is their prerogative and we must respect it.

 

At this point it's not about Michael's privacy but his family's.
Is anyone contending that they are public figures?