R.I.P. Legendary Actor Tim Kruger

[CuriousByNature]

10 hours ago, Peter Eater said:

He’s a public person, so it is in fact public business. Hardly urgent, burning public business, but public nonetheless.

According to the National Safety Council, most preventable deaths happen in the home, but only 1 out of every 2,000 deaths do. Rare.

I understand why people might think that because someone is a public person, that all of their business should be public business - urgent or not.  However, don't you think that some things should remain private if that person or their surviving family desire that?  We normally don't have access to public people's bank balances or medical records, so I'm perplexed why a cause of death needs to be public - unless it has a direct implication on public safety.  Knowing the cause of death only serves to satisfy our own curiosity (and I am CuriousByNature, so I do understand this), but I don't believe that is sufficient reason to expect that sort of information access.  It doesn't add any value knowing how someone died, no matter how famous and public they may have been.  But perhaps the expectation for access to private info is higher in the US than here in Canada.  Up here I think we may generally have more respect for the individual rights to privacy.

Edited March 6 by CuriousByNature

[d.anders]

Narcissistic entitlement. "Mind your own damn business" doesn't work in America anymore. Social media is all about transparency. God help us all.

[caliguy]

On 3/5/2025 at 10:50 PM, CuriousByNature said:

It doesn't add any value knowing how someone died, no matter how famous and public they may have been.  

He has a branded name which makes home a public person. These guys are looked at as role models by many.  Porn stars are kind of looked at as celebrities in our community or at least used to be.  Knowing someone died of an OD, steroid abuse, or disease isn't pretty but like it or not does add value. 

 

Edited March 8 by caliguy

[Lotus-eater]

 

On 3/5/2025 at 10:50 PM, CuriousByNature said:

I understand why people might think that because someone is a public person, that all of their business should be public business - urgent or not.  However, don't you think that some things should remain private if that person or their surviving family desire that?  We normally don't have access to public people's bank balances or medical records, so I'm perplexed why a cause of death needs to be public - unless it has a direct implication on public safety.  ...

Why should dead people have such rights? They lose the right to vote (unless they lived in Chicago 😁). More relevant, as a matter of common law in the U.S. and Canada, the details of a probated will are a public record (so the public can find out the value of an estate) and dead people can no longer be legally defamed because they no longer have a reputation to protect. 

Edited March 7 by Lotus-eater

[CuriousByNature]

22 minutes ago, Lotus-eater said:

 

Why should dead people have such rights? They lose the right to vote (unless they lived in Chicago 😁). More relevant, as a matter of common law in the U.S. and Canada, the details of a probated will are a public record (so the public can find out the value of an estate) and dead people can no longer be legally defamed because they no longer have a reputation to protect. 

Then in those cases, perhaps those who are interested in the details should have to go through the official search processes to learn the cause of death.  I believe a deceased person's reputation is something that should still be protected because they no longer have the ability to defend themselves if the details lead to inaccurate assumptions.  Often people's causes of death are released by the news and media when it's an important part of the story, and I don't really have an issue with that.  What I have an issue with is society's growing expectation that the personal details of public individuals should be immediately/easily accessible.  And particularly in cases where the survivors ask for privacy.  To me, it's about having respect for the deceased, and for their family and friends as they deal with their loss.

[mike carey]

For no apparent reason I am reminded of the old joke that A gentleman is someone who can play the accordion but chooses not to.

[MikeThomas]

He died in Spain.  From what I can see, in Spain, "death certificates", which are made public, do not include cause of death.  Spain also issues "medical death certificates", which do include cause of death, but which aren't available to the public.  

[Lotus-eater]

1 hour ago, CuriousByNature said:

Then in those cases, perhaps those who are interested in the details should have to go through the official search processes to learn the cause of death.  I believe a deceased person's reputation is something that should still be protected because they no longer have the ability to defend themselves if the details lead to inaccurate assumptions.  

The dead person still suffers no harm because they are not aware of any inaccurate assumptions about them (unless you believe in ghosts). And any harm to the dead person's reputation among the living would presumably come from the release of mostly accurate--but potentially embarrassing--information. Under the old rules of defamation, proving a claim to be true was not a legal defense based on the logic that a true claim was more damning to a person's reputation than a false claim, which seems to be your logic as well. Why should the family (at least those who were on good terms with the dead relative) and friends be entitled to be shielded from any negative publicity? What if the public wants to use that information as the basis of a protest at a funeral?

 

Edited March 7 by Lotus-eater

[Luv2play]

The truth has always been an absolute defence to the charge of libel. And it has always been the case that the dead cannot be libelled. But freedom of speech laws differ in different jurisdictions and the US has always leaned more in the direction of the defendant than the English law. 
 

On the question of where Tim Kruger died, Spain I understand, was that his usual domicile or was he on vacation? This also would be of interest to his fans and the interested public.

[CentaurWrangler]

I think that the premature death of Tim Kruger is truly lamentable, for his closest friends and family and for his wider audience. He wasn’t only a justly celebrated performer—he was a creator of a particular brand of erotic entertainment: no fuss, no posturing, no ridiculous attempts at plot, no slut shaming, just adults enjoying each other. And, by all appearances, a nice guy. 

[Lotus-eater]

21 hours ago, Luv2play said:

The truth has always been an absolute defence to the charge of libel. And it has always been the case that the dead cannot be libelled. But freedom of speech laws differ in different jurisdictions and the US has always leaned more in the direction of the defendant than the English law. 
 

No, truth has not always been a defense in a charge of libel. See, for example, People v. Croswell:

"English law in the time of the Star Chamber had disallowed truth as a defense, saying "The reason assigned for the punishment of libels, whether true or false, is because they tend to a breach of the peace, by inciting the libelled party to revenge, or the people to sedition." 

Alexander Hamilton lost the case and it was not until 1805 that the New York legislature changed the law and the state constitution in 1821 to allow truth as a defense. Other states also had to change their laws because of English common law.

Edited March 8 by Lotus-eater

[jeezifonly]

I recall when we cared more about the invisible Living than we do the famous Dead.
We’ve been reconditioned. The former no longer drives “engagement” I guess.

Marcel made a name for himself as a branded entertainer for a very specific audience, was very successful with it, and seemed well regarded (and loved) by those in his immediate circles. May they find peace for their loss. He left his public with evidence of the joy he had in life, that’s enough for me. 

[Luv2play]

16 hours ago, Lotus-eater said:

No, truth has not always been a defense in a charge of libel. See, for example, People v. Croswell:

"English law in the time of the Star Chamber had disallowed truth as a defense, saying "The reason assigned for the punishment of libels, whether true or false, is because they tend to a breach of the peace, by inciting the libelled party to revenge, or the people to sedition." 

Alexander Hamilton lost the case and it was not until 1805 that the New York legislature changed the law and the state constitution in 1821 to allow truth as a defense. Other states also had to change their laws because of English common law.

During the time of the Star Chamber, the rule of law was capricious and arbitrary. I wasn’t going back that far in history so should have qualified the time period.