Should influencers be allowed to sue to block public records requests?

[Anonymous]

The influencer chooses to put themselves (and often their family, home, etc) out there for profit. They do this willingly to cash in and they have NO issue spending (and bragging about) the spoils.

But then when someone happens - a death, a crime, whatever, they immediately sue to have otherwise public documents (police reports, etc) sealed.

It just seems hypocritical to me. Especially when the documents would be public record for literally anyone else.

I don’t know or care about this specific influencer, it’s just one example and I’ve seen it with others. I just find the whole thing so hypocritical when your entire business model is having the public up in your business.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/emilie-kiser-files-lawsuit-over-son-triggs-death-records/

[Anonymous]

Anyone can sue for any reason in America.

[Anonymous]

Most "influencers" are lower to middle class people who aren't making a ton of money and need to work round the clock for it. Most of them are not going to sue anyone if there is scrutiny about their private life.

If you cherry-pick cases, OP, you will always find facts to confirm your pre-established world view. Hopefully one day you'll understand it's not wise to go through life like this.

[Anonymous]

The law should be changed so that these records are not available to the public in general.

For example, these are the rules to get a copy of a marriage license in NYC. There should be something similar for the death certificate. It would be better to have those records anonymized, where you could get general statistics of how many people die of certain things. No reason for it to be public.

Who is eligible to order a certified copy of a marriage record?

People eligible to get a marriage certificate:

Spouses
Other people who have a:
documented judicial or other proper purpose
New York State Court Order

If you are not a spouse, you must document a judicial or other proper purpose. For example, you may need a marriage certificate to claim a benefit. You would need an official letter from the agency saying that you need the marriage record to process the claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The influencer chooses to put themselves (and often their family, home, etc) out there for profit. They do this willingly to cash in and they have NO issue spending (and bragging about) the spoils.

But then when someone happens - a death, a crime, whatever, they immediately sue to have otherwise public documents (police reports, etc) sealed.

It just seems hypocritical to me. Especially when the documents would be public record for literally anyone else.

I don’t know or care about this specific influencer, it’s just one example and I’ve seen it with others. I just find the whole thing so hypocritical when your entire business model is having the public up in your business.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/emilie-kiser-files-lawsuit-over-son-triggs-death-records/

Well couldn't "literally anyone else" sue to prevent their disclosure as well? There's special law for influencers, she just has a reason to use the legal tools available that most of us don't have. If my kid died, there likely wouldn't be any requests for the records, because I'm not someone anyone cares about.

[Anonymous]

So many of these influencers do incredibly dangerous things and show it off which risks having others emulate them. I have seen things like riding bikes as a family and nobody has helmets including the baby in a bike with mom, allowing toddlers way too close to a pool and the only person who seems to be around is mommy who is filming something else and just happens to catch this, allowing a baby to poke a large dog in the face and be rough and more. Anytime the adoring fans bring up concerns I see defensiveness or blocking.

So, if this was negligence they are covering up, then I actually think they do harm blocking it UNLESS one child pushed the other into the water or accidentally did something. It is never the fault of a child who should be closely supervised, but I absolutely would want that child protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone can sue for any reason in America.

This. Influencers should get no speical treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The influencer chooses to put themselves (and often their family, home, etc) out there for profit. They do this willingly to cash in and they have NO issue spending (and bragging about) the spoils.

But then when someone happens - a death, a crime, whatever, they immediately sue to have otherwise public documents (police reports, etc) sealed.

It just seems hypocritical to me. Especially when the documents would be public record for literally anyone else.

I don’t know or care about this specific influencer, it’s just one example and I’ve seen it with others. I just find the whole thing so hypocritical when your entire business model is having the public up in your business.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/emilie-kiser-files-lawsuit-over-son-triggs-death-records/

Well couldn't "literally anyone else" sue to prevent their disclosure as well? There's special law for influencers, she just has a reason to use the legal tools available that most of us don't have. If my kid died, there likely wouldn't be any requests for the records, because I'm not someone anyone cares about.

But if a random person sued, they would most likely lose.

I definitely agree an argument could be made for why this is public in the first place. But I don’t think these folks should get special treatment when they put themselves out there. It’s like the Meghan/Harry thing. You can’t want all the attention and then be shocked when people are giving you too much attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most "influencers" are lower to middle class people who aren't making a ton of money and need to work round the clock for it. Most of them are not going to sue anyone if there is scrutiny about their private life.

If you cherry-pick cases, OP, you will always find facts to confirm your pre-established world view. Hopefully one day you'll understand it's not wise to go through life like this.

No idea how popular this person is, but once they reach over 100,000 followers they can rake in in. There was one woman I followed because I used to like her home decor and garden (before she became obsessed with all white decor and over the top gardens) and she bragged she was making more than her husband who was high up at Cisco. At the time I think she had maybe 125,000 followers and I assume some of those were purchased.

[Anonymous]

I would like to see all monetizing of children online or on TV reality shows to be covered by the same regulations as child actors and professional agency sponsored child models, including require Coogan Accounts for any funds generated by minor content

[Anonymous]

I'm assuming the judges are deciding these cases on an individual level according to the facts. So, I'll trust them to make the decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The influencer chooses to put themselves (and often their family, home, etc) out there for profit. They do this willingly to cash in and they have NO issue spending (and bragging about) the spoils.

But then when someone happens - a death, a crime, whatever, they immediately sue to have otherwise public documents (police reports, etc) sealed.

It just seems hypocritical to me. Especially when the documents would be public record for literally anyone else.

I don’t know or care about this specific influencer, it’s just one example and I’ve seen it with others. I just find the whole thing so hypocritical when your entire business model is having the public up in your business.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/emilie-kiser-files-lawsuit-over-son-triggs-death-records/

Well couldn't "literally anyone else" sue to prevent their disclosure as well? There's special law for influencers, she just has a reason to use the legal tools available that most of us don't have. If my kid died, there likely wouldn't be any requests for the records, because I'm not someone anyone cares about.

But if a random person sued, they would most likely lose.

I definitely agree an argument could be made for why this is public in the first place. But I don’t think these folks should get special treatment when they put themselves out there. It’s like the Meghan/Harry thing. You can’t want all the attention and then be shocked when people are giving you too much attention.

You say the bolded based on what? The cases she cites (I've included the complaint below) don't suggest that there'd be any different outcome for a non-public figure. It actually seems like you're arguing for two sets of rules, once for people who "want all the attention" and one for the rest of us. Even if you fully think she's given up any right to privacy does that extend to her son? Does we all have a right to watch a three year old drown because of his mom's job?

It seems like you're letting your dislike of influencers (which I share) drive your thought process here, rather than the actual law or any kind of consistent reasoning that applies to everyone.

The complaint is here: https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/25955940-cv2025018383-com-complaint/?embed=1?embed=true&responsive=false&sidebar=false

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the judges are deciding these cases on an individual level according to the facts. So, I'll trust them to make the decisions.

I would like the judge to say to her, “oh, so you think there is too much public interest in the death of your child? Maybe you should have thought about that before selling your family for profit.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The influencer chooses to put themselves (and often their family, home, etc) out there for profit. They do this willingly to cash in and they have NO issue spending (and bragging about) the spoils.

But then when someone happens - a death, a crime, whatever, they immediately sue to have otherwise public documents (police reports, etc) sealed.

It just seems hypocritical to me. Especially when the documents would be public record for literally anyone else.

I don’t know or care about this specific influencer, it’s just one example and I’ve seen it with others. I just find the whole thing so hypocritical when your entire business model is having the public up in your business.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/emilie-kiser-files-lawsuit-over-son-triggs-death-records/

Well couldn't "literally anyone else" sue to prevent their disclosure as well? There's special law for influencers, she just has a reason to use the legal tools available that most of us don't have. If my kid died, there likely wouldn't be any requests for the records, because I'm not someone anyone cares about.

But if a random person sued, they would most likely lose.

I definitely agree an argument could be made for why this is public in the first place. But I don’t think these folks should get special treatment when they put themselves out there. It’s like the Meghan/Harry thing. You can’t want all the attention and then be shocked when people are giving you too much attention.

You say the bolded based on what? The cases she cites (I've included the complaint below) don't suggest that there'd be any different outcome for a non-public figure. It actually seems like you're arguing for two sets of rules, once for people who "want all the attention" and one for the rest of us. Even if you fully think she's given up any right to privacy does that extend to her son? Does we all have a right to watch a three year old drown because of his mom's job?

It seems like you're letting your dislike of influencers (which I share) drive your thought process here, rather than the actual law or any kind of consistent reasoning that applies to everyone.

The complaint is here: https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/25955940-cv2025018383-com-complaint/?embed=1?embed=true&responsive=false&sidebar=false

It seems inconsistent. The Judd’s tried and ultimately gave up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the judges are deciding these cases on an individual level according to the facts. So, I'll trust them to make the decisions.

I would like the judge to say to her, “oh, so you think there is too much public interest in the death of your child? Maybe you should have thought about that before selling your family for profit.”

Does the public really need to see video footage of the child drowning??? No, they don't.