Who Is a Public Figure?

In matters of libel, public figures are not as other mortals, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a series of cases since 1964, the court has ruled that a public figure cannot collect libel damages without proving that "actual malice" was involved in the publishing of inaccurate and defamatory material. Actual malice, said the court, means publishing with knowledge that a statement is false or with "reckless disregard" of whether it is false or not. The average person, on the other hand, must show only that the publisher of such material was guilty of "some type of fault," as would be found in a negligence case. The point, the court said, is to accommodate the First Amendment by giving publishers some legal "breathing space" in reporting on public figures.

But who exactly is a public figure? The high bench has recently taken a narrow view of the definition, and last week, it did so again. In 1967 Millionaire Russell A. Firestone Jr., now 49, finally won a Florida divorce from his third wife, Mary Alice Firestone, now 40, after a much publicized trial that went on intermittently for 17 months. TIME reported in MILESTONES that his divorce had been granted on grounds of "extreme cruelty and adultery." But while the judge's decision did allude to claims of extramarital escapades by both partners, he did not clearly identify the grounds. Mrs. Firestone was awarded alimony, which Florida law bans if the grounds for a divorce include adultery. She sued Time Inc. for libel and won a jury verdict of $100,000 for her mental anguish and suffering.

But she did not prove the magazine had acted with "actual malice." The publisher therefore asked the Supreme Court to throw out the libel judgment because the Palm Beach socialite was a public figure who was often in the newspapers, subscribed to a press clipping service, and even held press conferences during the long divorce fight. William Rehnquist, joined by four other justices, was unpersuaded. Mindful of the public "need for judicial redress of libelous utterances," Rehnquist held that Mrs. Firestone "did not assume any role of especial prominence in the affairs of society, other than perhaps Palm Beach society, and she did not thrust herself to the forefront of any particular public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved in it."

Rehnquist also declined to require the "actual malice" test in all cases involving coverage of judicial proceedings. The majority did send the case back to Florida courts for a determination on whether the magazine had acted "with fault." Meanwhile, journalists everywhere are now on notice that people who attract the sort of public interest that does not involve a true "public controversy" will be treated under libel law just like the average private citizen.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.