Opinion ID: 167625
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Limited Purpose Public Figure

Text: 7 Under Utah law, a defamation claim requires the plaintiff to show that defendants published the statements concerning him, that the statements were false, defamatory, and not subject to any privilege, that the statements were published with the requisite degree of fault, and that their publication resulted in damage. West v. Thomson Newspapers, 872 P.2d 999, 1007-08 (Utah 1994) (footnote omitted). But the First Amendment circumscribes liability for state defamation. See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). Specifically, if the plaintiff is a public figure, he must demonstrate by a standard of clear and convincing evidence that the defamatory statement was made with actual malice. See Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 510-11, 111 S.Ct. 2419, 115 L.Ed.2d 447 (1991). Actual malice is defined as knowledge that [the statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. New York Times, 376 U.S. at 280, 84 S.Ct. 710. 8 This rigorous standard also applies to a limited-purpose public figure. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 246 & n. 3, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In contrast to so-called all-purpose public figures, who occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence that they may hold sway on any issue with which they choose to become involved, see Wayment v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc., 116 P.3d 271, 279-80 (Utah 2005) (quotations omitted), a limited-purpose public figure is only a public figure with respect to a specific issue, see id. at 280. Indeed, the Supreme Court has described a limited-purpose public figure as one who voluntarily injects himself... into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 246 n. 3, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 351, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974)). Utah employs a two-part test to determine whether the plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure. First, the court must isolate the specific public controversy related to the defamatory remarks. Wayment, 116 P.3d at 283. Next, the court should examine the type and extent of the plaintiff's participation in that public controversy to determine whether, under Gertz, he has thrust [himself] to the forefront of [the] controvers[y] in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. Id. 9 In this case, the District Court held that World Wide was a limited purpose public figure with respect to the public controversy of how to deal with troubled teens. The court further noted that World Wide's principals have given dozens of interviews to media including L.A. Times, 48 Hours, New York Times, Deseret News, Denver Rocky News, and the Miami Herald, in support of its programs. The District Court also noted that World Wide's function is to promote the unique use of behavior modification techniques by its affiliated schools. As the marketing arm for the various programs that it promotes, World Wide chose to place itself in the national spotlight advocating this method. 10 The District Court's determination that World Wide is a limited-purpose public figure is a question of law, which we review de novo. See Foretich v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 37 F.3d 1541, 1551 (4th Cir.1994); see also Mid-America Pipeline Co. v. Lario Enters., Inc., 942 F.2d 1519, 1524 (10th Cir.1991) (stating that federal standards of appellate review apply to diversity actions). We agree that World Wide is a limited-purpose public figure. To begin, it is clear that there exists a public controversy as to the most effective method of treating at-risk teenagers. Indeed, the record includes numerous news accounts about the public debate surrounding this question and the use of particular behavior modification programs associated with World Wide. Second, World Wide's participation in this public controversy is extensive. As the District Court pointed out, World Wide's mission as a marketing company is to take an active role in this debate by both promoting its members' programs and defending those programs that are marred by scandal. But more than merely advocating for its individual members, World Wide has injected itself into the debate by promoting itself and all programs associated with it. For example, one article specifically centers on whether World Wide programs are effective and quotes the president of World Wide as saying, Parents are . . . very much in support [of World Wide programs]. Michelle Ray Ortiz, Behavior Modification: Salvation or Brainwashing? Programs for Troubled Teens get Mixed Reviews, Miami Herald, June 13, 1999, at 4B. Additionally, World Wide's public comments frequently refer to satisfied parents in response to charges of abuse. Accordingly, it is clear that World Wide thrust [itself] to the forefront of [this] public controvers[y] in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345, 94 S.Ct. 2997. The District Court did not err in deeming World Wide a limited-purpose public figure.