Death and Privacy by Knibblet

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Death and Privacy

POSTED BY: KNIBBLET
UPDATED: Thursday, February 5, 2004 03:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 977
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 6:28 AM

Once you're dead, you have no privacy. Once you're dead, you have no right to protection against slander or libel.

Terminally ill patients are advised to "get their things in order".

The Weekly World News has disgusting stories about Elvis sleeping with Marilyn and Kennedy fathering alien babies because the dead have no rights and the families cannot sue.

I fully expect that when I've passed my freshness date, my family will go through everything to ensure my estate is settled: This includes, bills, computer files, personal letters, etc.

My advice to anyone is: If you don't wish anyone to read your private letters - EVER - then honey, shred them now.

I'm not a lawyer - but I did ace a 6 credit business law course. Here's what I learned:

You need a will. It is the only way to ensure what you want to happen with your stuff happens.

Your personal property becomes the responsibility of your family (through the executor of your estate if you have a will - through whomever the State assigns if you die intestate). The government only cares about 'real property' (i.e. house, land, etc.) and money. Your personal property (clothes, letters, furniture, etc.) doesn't amount to a hill of beans to the tax man unless you have a Picasso somewhere and then they'll be very interested.

Get a will. In it,state that your personal letters hidden in the shoe box behind the bureau are to be shredded and buried beneath a chicken coup under a full moon.

For this common sense advice, I suggest you assign me all your cash, bacarrat crystal and Firefly DVD's.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 10:28 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

It is only logical to assume when one is dead that their rights go with them. It would be very hard to press a liable case from beyond the grave.

I am not a lawyer, and don't claim to be an expert when it comes to law, but it seems to me that I have heard it said that people such as Elvis, Kennedy, etc, who are celebrities are public figures and therefore are not afforded the same protection by law in regards to their privacy. Correct me if that is wrong.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 10:37 AM

DRAGONFLYDIRECTOR

Not all rights are lost, publishing and 'artistic' right can be held by families for a loooong time.

But it has to be set up that way.

Good examples of Family ownership lasting faaaar beyond the death of the indvidual. Unless the family sells specfic rights to the artistic 'property'.

Edgar Rice Burroughs
Authur Conan Doyal
Robert Heinline

Urg ... Those are the only 3 that come to mind at the moment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 10:39 AM

ARAWAEN

There used to a be a saying,

"Dont speak ill of the dead."

But like most customs, it has been discarded in the name of profit.

Arawaen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 10:58 AM

KNIBBLET

The original subject came up due to the inaccurate (and goram-minded) reporting of the death of SouthernSlayer and another member expressing their opinion that it would be wrong for anyone to go through a deceased's belongings.

Now as to the subject of public figures and privacy. Elvis's pursuit of a music career and his position as a public idol did open him up to the endless pursuit of the media; however, reporting the truth (no matter how private and/or embarassing) is entirely different than creating lies about the person. Elvis would have been just as 'protected from libel or slander as you or I.

My statement mentioned the ridiculous lengths the Weekly World News goes to in their *shudder* publication. If they were to report that Janet Jackson flashed her breast at the superbowl, that might be embarassing. If they reported that she is actually a clone created from Michael's DNA, *that* would be libel. .... At least, I hope that the DNA story isn't true.

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I have heard it said that people such as Elvis, Kennedy, etc, who are celebrities are public figures and therefore are not afforded the same protection by law in regards to their privacy. Correct me if that is wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 11:10 AM

KNIBBLET

Those would qualify under the 'real property' and/or 'business' areas. Those rights generate money, ergo, they are something that the taxman would find interesting.

Quote:
Originally posted by DragonFlyDirector:
Not all rights are lost, publishing and 'artistic' right can be held by families for a long time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 5, 2004 3:50 AM

KALATHENA

An estate can still sue for libel or slander once a person is dead. They don't usually win, but they can and have sued successfully before.

As for the Weekly World News, yes, it's all garbage, but that's why they have the "this is a piece of fiction" in their disclaimer.

What tabloids say about individuals, living or dead, rarely has an impact on that individual. Libel is a difficult thing to prove so most stars don't bother. The big exception, of course, was when Carol Burnette successfully sued the National Inquirer for a story they did on her daughter's drug habit. She sued because her daughter had struggled with her drug issue for years and at the time the article ran, she'd been clean for over a year. Burnette donated all of the proceeds to the rehab facility where her daughter had been hospitalized.

--Kala

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE