Opinion ID: 1616152
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Chafoulias' Role in the Public Controversy

Text: Having determined that a public controversy existed at the time of the Prime-Time Live broadcast, we turn to an evaluation of Chafoulias' role in that controversy. This requires us to determine whether Chafoulias voluntarily inject[ed] himself or was drawn into that controversy. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 351, 94 S.Ct. 2997. In other words, we must consider whether Chafoulias thrust himself to the forefront of the controversy as we have defind it so as to achieve a special prominence in the debate and become a factor in resolving the controversy. Id. Chafoulias must either have been purposely trying to influence the outcome of the controversy or must have realistically expected, because of his position in the controversy, to have an impact on its resolution. Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297 (footnote omitted) (noting [t]rivial or tangential participation is not enough). In undertaking this analysis, we may look to the extent to which Chafoulias' participation in the public controversy was voluntary, the extent to which Chafoulias had access to channels of effective communication to counteract false statements, and the prominence of the role Chafoulias played in the public controversy. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 344-45, 94 S.Ct. 2997. Again, we recognize that ABC stands in a different position than Peterson on this issue. Because ABC did not create the controversy, which existed before ABC's broadcast, ABC is entitled to rely on any actions by Chafoulias that were not made in response to actions of ABC. Stated another way, Chafoulias cannot avoid limited purpose public figure status as to ABC by arguing that his involvement in the controversy was involuntarily induced by Peterson. Chafoulias argues that he is a private figure because he did not take any voluntary action to thrust himself into the public eye for any reason; instead, he was dragged unwillingly into the federal lawsuits by his ex-employees and into the limelight by Peterson. See Wolston, 443 U.S. at 166, 99 S.Ct. 2701. He claims that the hotel's hiring of the media consultant, the letter to KSTP-TV, and the letter to Page were measured responses and thus fail to support the conclusion that Chafoulias thrust himself to the forefront of the controversy. While these arguments have relevance to his claims against Peterson, they are not relevant to ABC, which is entitled to rely on the circumstances as it found them, including the actions of Chafoulias that were induced by Peterson but not by ABC. We conclude that, as to ABC, the undisputed facts show that Chafoulias did thrust himself into the public controversy. See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345, 94 S.Ct. 2997. First, we note that just as defamation defendants cannot create their own defense by pointing to the attention they have themselves visited upon a plaintiff as evidence that the plaintiff is a public figure, the plaintiff is not permitted to avoid the [limited purpose public figure status] by protesting, I didn't want the attention. The proper question is not whether the plaintiff volunteered for the publicity but whether the plaintiff volunteered for an activity out of which publicity would foreseeably arise. Smolla, Law of Defamation at §§ 2:30, 2:32. Thus, Chafoulias' claim that he neither sought nor desired public attention is unavailing. Second, the record shows that Chafoulias had access to the media and that, independent of any action by ABC, he used the media to promote his position in the dispute. See Jadwin, 367 N.W.2d at 486 (stating that effective media access is distinguishing feature of public figures). In correspondence with KSTP-TV, Chafoulias stated that the hotel and other area businesses had been affected by the issues you intend to raise in your story and admonished KSTP-TV to share the hotel's harassment policy with viewers. The Rochester Post-Bulletin published an article outlining the Radisson's harassment policy two days after the Radisson issued a press release in response to the harassment charges. The two-part 1998 KTTC interview, though taking place after the alleged defamation, demonstrates that Chafoulias had broad media access, allowing him to strategically place media appearances that could influence the ultimate outcome of the controversy surrounding the harassment allegations. Third, the record shows that Chafoulias has assumed [a] role[] of especial prominence in society that naturally invite[s] attention and comment from the public and the press. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345, 94 S.Ct. 2997. By seeking public and government support for development projects that have a significant impact on Rochester, Chafoulias has assumed a position that invites attention and comment about the manner in which he conducts his business affairs.