• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could ex-Astronomer CEO sue Coldplay? Good luck!

Chock Full o Nuts

Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2023
Messages
8,365
Reaction score
9,694
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right


He damaged his own reputation. Even if Martin didn’t say that, you got put on the screen(expected at concerts), and ducked for cover. Now you've peeked everyones interested. Busted.


Seilie explains, “He has no expectation of privacy in a public arena (and my guess is that he accepted an even broader release of privacy-related claims when he purchased his ticket).”
Exactly.

She could try that. Might have legs. But no, you got busted. Deal with it.
 
Isn't defamation valid if it's untrue? What did Martin say that was not true?

I really hate the "gotta sue" mentality of some of these people.
I think at this point it's just lawyers salivating and "what if" gossip.
 
Isn't defamation valid if it's untrue? What did Martin say that was not true?

I really hate the "gotta sue" mentality of some of these people.
Martin didn't even make a claim, he simply proposed two possibilities for their shrinking away from the camera and he said it in jest. I suppose he can try to sue and make himself look like an even bigger douchebag.
 
There is no expectation of privacy at a public event. This is just bad journalism by Page Six. Whatever the hell that is.
 


Seems like he has proceeded.

 

Even if your words or printed speech harms another the truth is a 100% affirmative defense of the right to utter it.

So :

1) 0n the back of most event tickets you’ll see a notification that the presenter of that ticket at the entrance and crossing the threshold thereof is tacit permission to the use of the holder’s likeness within the establishment. That there is, within the event, no expectation of privacy.

2) Such a suit would give the defendant the right to petition the court for access to all manner of private records to prove the defendant’s speech was factual, and thus not slander or libel (the truth is a 100% affirmative defense). So, I don’t think Byron would like Coldplay’s lawyers getting all up in his business. No tellingvwhat else they’d find out.
 
There is no expectation of privacy at a public event. This is just bad journalism by Page Six. Whatever the hell that is.
Seems to me that Byron and Cabot created the problem themselves by ducking and hiding their faces. If they had just waved at the camera and
gone on like nothing happened they would have gone unnoticed in the crowd. What are the chances the video would have gone viral?
Highly unlikely their spouses would have ever known.
 
Yeah, probably would have went under the radar.

But what if the spouse was a Coldplay fan as well? Hubby 'had to work". Sorry dear...

Well I'll catch concert highlights on YT tomorrow......

We could be talking about a murder scene now! "You son of a..."

Maybe it was for the best. "I gotta pull a 48hr here dear. Love you!" click...
 
Invasion of privacy?

At a very public concert?

Seems his ‘distress’ is really caused by his and her cheating on their spouses and being so brazen to have gone to a very public event.
 
There is no expectation of privacy in a public venue. Maybe if they found out that old play had a vested interest in exposing them...
 
He's an idiot. He can't think he'll win this. The odds are very much against him since there are so many parts of this that go against his case.

He appears to be having an affair. The joke about them having an affair was clearly said in jest, not as serious, whether true or not. It is pretty clear that there was inappropriate contact in the video between him and the woman with him, whom he worked with. There was no pressure for them to be together, since the kiss cam landed on them after they were already in that position and they broke apart because of the cam, going off of how they moved apart.

The damage was done by his actions, not the cameras catching his actions. He has no expectation of privacy within a public venue. This would be like suing a friend or acquaintance who told your spouse they saw you out with someone else, possibly even showing you on video. Even if you can show that they were wrong, if the video shows a legitimate unedited scene that could be taken as such, then they are not going to be liable.
 
Actual "Mayhem" ad that came out that is similar to this.

Granted this is different scenario, but shows a little of what you're talking about.

 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…