[ArtB]

>"I think reporting about _why is fair game, _why was a public figure. I think hunting down the man who created _why is intrusive and is at the level of a paparazzo, invading the privacy of a person who from the outset was clear about separating the two."

Sorry, but I find that rediculous. If Brian Warner kills someone, or James Osterburg overdoses that is not appropriate for public news because they did it under their private personas? Or can Brittney Spears claim that she has two different personas that both just happen to be named "Brittney Spears"?

Frankly, as I see it, once you develop a reputation based on name in a wider community you are now a public figure regardless under which persona you'd like to hide.

[icebraining]

Killing someone is a very different issue - it's not a private matter, but a public crime. But for the rest, why not? Why should one be forced to have his life publicized just because he creates something that many people like?

You're essentially punishing people for doing good things. That feels very wrong to me.

[ArtB]

You are not being punished even if you perceive as such. One could say that an obese women that loses weight and gets in shaped gets punished because men hit on her.

[icebraining]

If that hypothetical woman was getting hit by men after she made it clear that she dislikes it, then I'd say it is punishment. Well, not punishment exactly, because that's a response to a behavior considered wrong, but in a "no good deed goes unpunished" sense.

[al2]

First off, it's spelled "ridiculous".

Next, it's not for you to decide if someone wants to have multiple personas. It's also going to vary over time.

Here's an example taken to the extreme: because you have posted publicly (at least several times on HN), is it okay for me to decide that that fits my personal definition of a public figure because you have now a reputation of being kind of a tool and then proceed to investigate and post personal details about you?

I didn't think so.

[lrobb]

It's a rather bizarre argument... That would exclude about half of the celebrities that we know... "Prince", Lady Gaga, et al...

[sesqu]

And you consider that to be a bad thing?

It's a perfectly sensible argument, as any person who has played both sides of the same chess game can tell you. People can and do have multiple conflicting personas, and attempting to identify [ed: coalesce] them is rarely useful. It can server to debase or solidify credentials or to explain fractures, but those are all exceptional purposes.

People have the right to put words in a different location from their money, and they have the right to invite a few friends in for a beer while the regent takes care of official matters. The press has special liberties to infringe on these rights, as they are expected to do so responsibly.

[lrobb]

Whether I consider it bad or not is irrelevant. It's the (US) law.