PUBLIC FIGURE—PRIVATE FIGURE

FROM PUBLIC OFFICIAL TO PUBLIC FIGURE:

CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS (1967) pp. 284-285;
ASSOCIATED PRESS V. WALKER (1967) pp. 284-285

[public figures are to be treated like public officials in libel suits-Times standard applies]

ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA (1971)

Times standard applies to some private individuals: "We honor the commitment to robust debate on public issues . . . by extending constitutional protection to all discussion and communication involving matters of public or general concern, without regard to whether the persons involved are famous or anonymous."

*GERTZ V WELCH (1974)

REPUTATION IS AN IMPORTANT VALUE REQUIRING PROTECTION pp. 297-298

TWO WAYS TO DISTINGUISH PUBLIC FIGURES—PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS pp. 298-300

1. CONTINUING ACCESS TO THE MEDIA

2. INVITE ATTENTION

TEST FOR GENERAL PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURES:

SO FAMOUS, SO NOTORIOUS

TEST FOR LIMITED PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURES:

VOLUNTARILY THRUST THEMSELVES

INTO THE MIDDLE OF A PUBLIC CONTROVERSY

IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES OF THAT CONTROVERSY

 

CLARIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE DISTINCTION:

FIRESTONE V. TIME (1976) p. 316

WOLSTON V. READER’S DIGEST ASSOCIATION (1979) p. 317

HUTCHINSON V. PROXMIRE (1979) p. 317

TROTTER/WALDBAUM Test p. 320

*people are discussing a controversy and people other than the participants in the discussion are likely to feel the impact of its resolution

**the plainfiff has more than a trivial or tangential role

***the defamatory statement is germane to plaintiff's role in the controversy

WFAA-TV V. McLEMORE (Supreme Court of Texas (1998) pp. 321-322