Definition of Public Figure Defamation

Private person (Persons who are not qualified as public officials/public figures or public figures with a limited purpose are private personalities.) This article was originally published in 2009. Gary E. Bugh is Professor of Political Science, Chair of the Department of Political Science, and Academic Counselor of Pre-Law at Texas A&M University-Texarkana. He teaches political theory, American political theory, constitutional law, civil rights and civil liberties, political parties and elections, and the presidency. His publications include Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities (Routledge, 2016). The category “public servants” includes politicians and senior government officials, but also extends to government employees who have or appear to have substantial responsibility or control over the conduct of government business to the public. The courts have interpreted these criteria broadly, extending the classification of public figures to civil servants at very low levels in the government hierarchy. For example, the supervisor of a county ski sports centre was considered a “public official” for the purposes of the Defamation Act. See Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S.

75 (1966). Some courts have even extended protection to all those dealing with public health issues, such as hospital staff, because health issues are important to the general public. See Hall v. Piedmont Publishing Co., 46 N.C. App. 760, 763 (1980). The importance of the applicant`s status as a public or private figure was first established in 1964 in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). In that case, the plaintiff, a police officer, sued the New York Times for allegedly making false statements about him.

The case reached the United States. The Supreme Court, which balanced the plaintiff`s interest in protecting his reputation with the public`s interest in free debate on political affairs. The Supreme Court has ruled that for a public figure to receive damages in a defamation case, he must prove not only that the testimony was defamatory, but also that it was made with real malice. The Court argued that this increased burden of proof was required by the First Amendment to ensure uninhibited debate on public issues, even if such a debate involves “vehement, caustic, and unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public servants.” In the legal sense, “real malevolence” has nothing to do with malevolence or aversion to someone and harming them. Instead, courts have defined “actual malice” in relation to defamation as the publication of a statement, while both courts award damages to public figures in defamation cases for a variety of reasons. First, the courts have made a normative decision that the reputation of public figures deserves less legal protection. The reasoning is that public figures such as singers, dancers, actors and politicians seek the attention of the public and therefore must take the right attention with the wrong one. Second, the courts recognize that public figures generally have much wider access to the media than average citizens and can use their access to the media to refute defamatory statements without the support of the courts. The idea is that a celebrity who feels defamed can refute the defamatory statement in an interview with a magazine or talk show, or write an editorial for a newspaper. Discussion about a person on the Internet can sometimes increase to the point that it leads to the topic of discussion being treated as an involuntary public figure.

[4] The second category of public figures is called “limited purpose public figures”. These are individuals who have “pushed themselves to the top of certain controversies to influence the resolution of the problems associated with them.” Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (United States 1974). They are the ones who consciously shape the debate on certain public issues, especially those who use the media to influence that debate. Companies are not automatically treated as public figures, and corporate defamation claims are assessed according to the same standards as those of individuals. [5] n. in defamation law (slander and slander), a personality of great public interest or familiarity such as a civil servant, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero. Harmful false statements published about a public figure cannot form the basis of a defamation lawsuit unless there is evidence that the author or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice (hate). If a defamation plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted maliciously in making the defamatory statement. If the plaintiff is an individual, the First Amendment does not impose any limitation on the standards of liability that states may adopt.

Under Illinois law, a plaintiff of a private personality only has to prove that the defendant made the negligent defamatory statement to succeed. This category also includes people who have distinguished themselves in a particular field, making them “public figures” who only relate to those specific activities. These versatile public figures are not the Kobe Bryants, who are considered versatile figures in public life, but the basketball companions of the league. Check out this list of examples to understand the difference between public figures/civil servants, public figures with a limited purpose and private figures for the purposes of defamation law. Celebrities, politicians, senior officials or senior officials and other people with power in society are generally considered public figures/officials and must prove real malevolence. Unlike these well-known and powerful individuals, your shy neighbor is likely to be a private figure who only needs to prove negligence if you post something defamatory about him. Determining who is a public or private figure is not always easy. In some cases, the categories may overlap. For example, a blogger who is a well-known authority on autism clinical research may be considered a public figure for autism-related controversy purposes, but not for other purposes. Although the Court has rendered some decisions, including Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) and Rosenbloom v.

Metromedia, Inc. (1971) – this did not protect individuals from defamation when the facts published in the 1974 Gertz decision and in Time, Inc. v. Firestone (1976), it offered greater protection to people who had not voluntarily placed themselves in the public eye. A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality or business leader, who has a certain social position in a certain scope and significant influence and is therefore often of great importance to the public, can benefit enormously from society and is closely related to public interests in society. [1] More recently, the status of “involuntary public figure” has been reflected in lower court decisions such as Dameron v. Washington Magazine (1985), which refers to a person involved in an event of primary social importance (in this case, an air traffic controller at the time of a serious aircraft accident). Overall, however, individuals enjoy greater protection against defamation than public figures and public servants.

Being negligent as opposed to reckless disregard is the main difference between a defamation lawsuit against an official/person and a private person or business.