Also known as: public figures
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A person who has achieved fame or notoriety or who has voluntarily become involved in a public controversy. Such a person must prove that a defamatory statement was made with actual malice to recover damages for defamation concerning the public role.
Pavel Petrov, the longtime governor, sued a news outlet after it published a story accusing him of rigging state contracts. The outlet had relied on an unverified tip without checking public records or contacting Petrov. Because Petrov is a public figure, the court required him to show that the publisher knew the story was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth.
Parker Phillips, a nationally known athlete, sued a magazine after it published a profile containing a deliberately altered quotation that changed the meaning of his comments on team management. The alteration was material and the editors knew it misrepresented his views. Phillips prevailed because the knowing alteration established actual malice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pablo Perez, a celebrity chef, sued a food blogger over a post accusing him of serving spoiled ingredients at a private dinner party unrelated to his public work. The court applied ordinary negligence standards because the statement concerned a purely private matter. Perez recovered without proving actual malice.
Pearl Porter, the city police chief, sued a newspaper for an editorial accusing her of ignoring officer misconduct. The paper had published the editorial based on anonymous complaints without further verification. Because Porter is a public official, the court required clear and convincing evidence of actual malice before allowing recovery.
Patrick Phan, a private citizen who occasionally spoke at city council meetings, sued a local website for falsely accusing him of financial impropriety in his personal business. The court held that Phan remained a private figure because he had not thrust himself into the controversy at issue. He therefore needed to prove only negligence.
Peter Park, a well-known television host, sued a comedy network over a parody sketch that portrayed him in an outrageous fictional scenario. The network had aired the segment knowing Park was a frequent subject of public commentary. The court dismissed the claim because Park could not show actual malice in the expressive publication.
A public figure must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published the statement with actual malice, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Supporting sources
Deliberate alteration of a quotation constitutes actual malice only if the change produces a material difference in meaning. Trivial changes do not suffice.
Supporting sources
A public figure may recover presumed or punitive damages only upon a showing of actual malice.
Supporting sources
An all-purpose public figure enjoys pervasive fame or notoriety for all purposes. A limited-purpose public figure has voluntarily thrust himself into a particular public controversy and is treated as a public figure only for statements concerning that controversy.
Supporting sources
Yes. Public figures must prove actual malice to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress or false-light privacy claims arising from expressive publications.
Supporting sources
…statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The rule was extended to public figures in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts , 388 U.S. 130 (1967). The Court has not yet defined the precise boundaries of the “public figure” category. We need not address that question here.…