Bad phrasing on my part. I didn't mean that anyone considered RPF illegal, just that there used to be a widespread belief that it was wrong, even in fandom, even among fanfic writers.
However, I'm going to comment anyway on the libel thing. I'm not an expert or a lawyer, just someone with a brief journalistic background, so standard disclaimer, but it's an oversimplification that public figures (I think the phrase is actually those "in the public eye") don't have a lot of control over what's written about them. In a libel suit, it's certainly true the burden of proof is on the person claiming to have been libeled. Private citizens pretty much need only prove a statement was false and that no attempt was made to assess the statement's veracity to prove libel. The burden of proof is greater for public citizens, but not insurmountable. They must additionally prove that the statement was knowingly false (the libeler knew for sure it wasn't true, not just failed to check) and harmful (almost certainly monetarily, not just "emotional trauma," for example, someone who cannot get a job because all prospective employers read on Famous Blog A that s/he is a cocaine addict). Public figures who wanted to bring libel suits for RPF would find it very easy to prove stories were knowingly false, but they'd have a lot harder time proving they'd been damaged (the writer doesn't really think X and his co-star have sprouted wings and are having nightly sex, and no one else does either).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-05 10:53 pm (UTC)However, I'm going to comment anyway on the libel thing. I'm not an expert or a lawyer, just someone with a brief journalistic background, so standard disclaimer, but it's an oversimplification that public figures (I think the phrase is actually those "in the public eye") don't have a lot of control over what's written about them. In a libel suit, it's certainly true the burden of proof is on the person claiming to have been libeled. Private citizens pretty much need only prove a statement was false and that no attempt was made to assess the statement's veracity to prove libel. The burden of proof is greater for public citizens, but not insurmountable. They must additionally prove that the statement was knowingly false (the libeler knew for sure it wasn't true, not just failed to check) and harmful (almost certainly monetarily, not just "emotional trauma," for example, someone who cannot get a job because all prospective employers read on Famous Blog A that s/he is a cocaine addict). Public figures who wanted to bring libel suits for RPF would find it very easy to prove stories were knowingly false, but they'd have a lot harder time proving they'd been damaged (the writer doesn't really think X and his co-star have sprouted wings and are having nightly sex, and no one else does either).