Reply #59: Could be a public figure

[Mistwell]

It is certainly possible she has thrust herself into the limelight to present her side of the story sufficiently to qualify as a public figure. I was not aware she ever even made it into mainstream media outlets (which just shows I have not followed this controversey close enough). However, since that is a determination for the Courts, and often a fairly subjective call, I wouldn't bank on it.

Here is some case law about the issue (text taken from another web site... http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/~drechsel/j559/readings/LibelOverheads2.html )

* Gertz: Even extremely prominent attorney representing family in high profile, controversial case does not become limited-purpose public figure merely by act of representing family. This does not constitute voluntary injection into controversy to influence outcome.
* Firestone: Prominent socialite does not become voluntary public figure in connection with media coverage of her divorce. Involvement in litigation does not constitute voluntary injection into public controversy, nor is explanatory news conference automatically an effort to influence outcome. Public controversy is not the same thing as all occurrences of interest to the public: newsworthiness NOT same as public controversy
* Wolston: Involvement as witness in criminal investigation does not inherently transform one into a public figure even if one has refused to comply with grand jury subpoena in high-profile espionage case
* Hutchins: Government-employed researcher does not become public figure by virtue of applying for and receiving government research grant for project that becomes controversial. Media cannot make someone a public figure merely by covering that person.