Opinion ID: 2602442
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defamationpublic v. private figures

Text: The general elements of a defamation claim require a plaintiff to prove: (1) a false and defamatory statement by [a] defendant concerning the plaintiff; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third person; (3) fault, amounting to at least negligence; and (4) actual or presumed damages. [24] With the adoption of the First Amendment's free speech provisions to the United States Constitution, the United States Supreme Court was forced to determine how the First Amendment interacted with the common law of defamation. Initially, the High Court suggested that the First Amendment did not protect against false statements and was not implicated in a defamation action. [25] However, in the landmark case of New York Times Company v. Sullivan, [26] the Supreme Court concluded that the negligence standard was too broad when applied to defendants who were commenting about the actions of a public official. To promote free criticism of public officials, and avoid any chilling effect from the threat of a defamation action, the High Court concluded that a defendant could not be held liable for damages in a defamation action involving a public official plaintiff unless actual malice is alleged and proven by clear and convincing evidence. [27] Actual malice has been defined as knowledge that it [the statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. [28] Reckless disregard means that the publisher of the statement acted with a  `high degree of awareness of ... [the] probable falsity'  of the statement or had serious doubts as to the publication's truth. [29] After New York Times, the Supreme Court extended heightened First Amendment protection to individuals who were not public officials, but who were involved in issues of public concern. These persons were designated as public figures by the High Court. [30] The Supreme Court further addressed the issue of public figures in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia. [31] In a plurality opinion, the Rosenbloom Court suggested that public figure status applies to any individual involved in a matter of general or public interest. [32] Three years later, the Court retreated from the broad definition of a public figure espoused in Rosenbloom. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., [33] the United States Supreme Court clarified the definition of a public figure. The Gertz Court reiterated that the New York Times standard applies only to public officials and public figure plaintiffs, not to private plaintiffs, and that states may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability when a publisher or broadcaster makes a defamatory statement that injures a private individual. [34] The Gertz Court created two categories of public figures. General public figures are those individuals who achieve such pervasive fame or notoriety that [they] become[ ] a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. [35] Limited public figures are individuals who have only achieved fame or notoriety based on their role in a particular public issue. [36] A limited-purpose public figure is a person who voluntarily injects himself or is thrust into a particular public controversy or public concern, and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. [37] The test for determining whether someone is a limited public figure includes examining whether a person's role in a matter of public concern is voluntary and prominent. [38] Specifically, the Gertz Court stated: We would not lightly assume that a citizen's participation in community and professional affairs rendered him a public figure for all purposes. Absent clear evidence of general fame and notoriety in the community, and pervasive involvement in the affairs of society, an individual should not be deemed a public personality for all aspects of his life. It is preferable to reduce the public-figure question to a more meaningful context by looking to the nature and extent of an individual's participation in the particular controversy giving rise to the defamation. [39] We adopt the Gertz test for determining whether a person is a general-purpose or a limited-purpose public figure. Based on the language contained in Rosenbloom and Gertz, state courts have considered whether a restaurant is a public figure for the limited purpose of reporting on the quality or condition of the restaurant's services. For example, in Journal-Gazette Co. v. Bandido's, Inc., [40] a Mexican-American restaurant brought a defamation suit against a local newspaper after it published a story entitled Health board shuts doors of Bandido's Inspectors find rats, roaches at local eatery. [41] The Indiana Supreme Court, pursuant to Gertz, adopted the actual malice standard and concluded that Bandido's was a limited-purpose public figure: Restaurants and other establishments that actively advertise and seek commercial patronage have been routinely held to be public figures, at least for the limited purpose of consumer reporting on their goods and services. Hence, while Bandido's may not necessarily have been a public figure before the health department closed the restaurant, we find that it certainly became a public figure for the limited purpose of issues concerning the health department's report and the circumstances giving rise to the closing of the restaurant. [42] Several other jurisdictions have adopted the same rationale in regard to restaurants and restaurant reviews. [43] These courts have indicated that because a restaurant is a place of public accommodation that seeks public patrons, it is a public figure for the limited purpose of a food review or reporting on its goods and services. We agree with our sister states' rationale that a place of public accommodation has voluntarily injected itself into the public concern for the limited purpose of reporting on its goods and services. Here, Salsa Dave's is a limited-purpose public figure because it has voluntarily entered the public spectrum by providing public accommodation and seeking public patrons. Thus, it is a limited public figure for the purpose of a food review. Therefore, we conclude that Salsa Dave's had the burden of proving that the RGJ acted with actual malice when it printed the Ferrante review in order to sustain an action for defamation against the RGJ.