No, it just becomes a private matter people discuss publicly. Look, let's say you and Lori have a knock-down-drag-out fight in a local restaurant. Pretty son there's all kinds of blogging about it, people taking sides about who was right. Does your marriage become a "public matter" just because when you, who are a famous guy in some circles, do what a lot of other people do it gets attention from total strangers?

As for Ivey, has he become mute? If he wants to make his "side" public, he certainly can, he has a million venues, including this one. And what's with all the coy "my friend" stuff - if you think it's public then what exactly is the point? The fact is it is none of your business, my business or anyone else's. It isn't a bad jump-off for a thread about gambling ethics, but mostly you were just doing your White Knight imitation, you were all po'ed for someone else and posting sophmoric underground highschool email. Stop it - you're a grown man, now, take care of your own business, seems challenging enough. And try to write one blog in a row that doesn't diss anyone or defend anything. Phil Ivey is a big boy, now, too and he can handle his own problems.

Stop being so sensible. Why let the truth get in the way of a good story (even if the truth isn't fully known by the person doing the gossiping/slandering about it)? Maybe Danny will realise its their business and not his and maybe he wont, only time will tell.

Obviously, Ivey is not the type of guy that will go out and say whats on his mind, whereas Daniel loves to speak his mind. Daniel and Ivey are good friends and Daniel just wants to help him out. There's nothing wrong with Daniel writing this in his blog even if Phil chooses not to.

This actually is public, since, Phil Ivey, a public figure, is involved. In the US the lives of celebrities is public fodder since they sought out their celebrity status. This is why rags like the Enquiror can run stories on every detail of a celebrities life and not be charges with libel or slander. Not that I'm saying that Negreanu is paparazzi, but it is definitely a public matter, not private.





Public Figures

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".