Should laws concerning defaming public figures by media bodies be changed in favor of public figures? An example of untruthful defamation of a public person by a media body may be a false-information newspaper article.
There is no need for a "special law" for our lords and masters against being slandered...
...strangely enough, there are already laws on the books for this very thing. If the "common people's" laws aren't enough for the high and mighty, then I suggest they change the "common people's" laws rather than make special laws for themselves.
Of, by, and for the people - I certainly wish more politicians knew that that meant.
The fact that "Yes" is winning this is very, very worrying...
No law should ever favor a particular group against another group. NEVER.
Misunderstood question; there's nothing in this topic about favorizing a particular group against another group. I edited the title a bit, hope it's easier to understand now.
I voted no because I don't think the law should be changed for famous people. However, the title says "public figures", so maybe there is a nuance. In my opinion, anyone should be protected from slander.
You have misunderstood the question; the laws are not equal for public and non-public figures - never were and never will be. Obviously non-public figures should be protected from public defamation, but this is not the matter of the topic. The title does not define how would the changed laws affect non-public figures, as it's not the concern.
Ok, so the question is: should laws concerning defaming public figures be changed/(possibly improved), right? I suppose so (sounds like an improvement [of the law] to me).
That's correct. I've added a description to make it clearer.