因《东方体育日报》报道了有关范志毅世界杯期间涉嫌赌博而打假球一事,范志毅一怒之下将该报告上法庭。2002年12月18日,上海市静安区人民法院判被告《东方体育日报》胜诉。判决书写道:“即使原告认为争议的报道点名道姓称其涉嫌赌球有损其名誉,但作为公众人物的原告,对媒体在行使正当舆论监督的过程中,可能造成的轻微损害应当予以容忍与理解。”这只不过是近年来频频出现的涉及“公众人物”的诸多案件中的一个代表而已。在这些案件的审理过程中,媒体被告一般都会拿“公众人物”作为自己的辩护理由,而法官有的是默默地接受了这个辩护,更多的是不予理会。事实上,许多人坚持媒体的报道一旦引发侵权纠纷时,尤其是当侵害对象是名人、是公众人物时,新闻媒体的侵权行为仍然要受到保护。他们称这种保护在国外——至少在美国,自从《纽约时报》诉沙利文(New York Due to the “Oriental Sports Daily” reported on Fan Zhiyi during the World Cup suspected of playing gambling on the issue of fake ball, Fan Zhiyi in a huff in the report to court. December 18, 2002, Shanghai Jing’an District People’s Court sentenced defendant “Oriental Sports Daily” victory. The verdict states: “Even though the plaintiff considered the alleged name of the dispute as alleged to be a gambling ball detrimental to his reputation, the plaintiff, as a public figure, should tolerate minor damage that may be caused by the media in exercising due supervision of the public opinion And understanding. ”This is but one of the many cases involving“ public figures ”frequently appearing in recent years. In the trial of these cases, the media defendants generally take “public figures ” as their own defense reasons, and some judges quietly accepted the defense, but more ignored. In fact, many people insist that if the media reports lead to infringement disputes, especially when the targets of infringement are celebrities and public figures, the infringement by the news media still needs to be protected. They claim that such protection is abroad-at least in the United States-since The New York Times v. New York