This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

A bombing occurred in Centennial Olympic Park. P worked as a security guard in the park. Shortly before the explosion, he spotted a suspicious and unattended package and reported its existence to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. At the same time, an anonymous 911 call informed police that a bomb had been placed in the park. P assisted the police in moving park patrons away from the package. He also assisted in the evacuation of the five-story tower where the package was located. The bomb exploded. Before he became a suspect, P granted one photo shoot and ten interviews. He was considered a hero, and everyone wanted a piece of his fame. Now, the villain 19 articles portrayed P as an individual who was guilty or likely guilty of criminal involvement in the bombing, who had a motive for the bombing, and who had an aberrant personality and a bizarre employment history. P sued Ds, and the issue to be determined was whether P was a public or private figure. In order for a 'public figure' to recover in a suit for defamation, there must be proof by clear and convincing evidence of actual malice on the part of the defendant. Plaintiffs who are 'private persons' must only prove that the defendant acted with ordinary negligence. The trial court held that P is a voluntary limited-purpose public figure. It held that the public controversy following the bombing and prior to the alleged defamatory statements included the broader question of the safety of the general public in returning to the Olympic Park area. Safety of the park and other Olympic venues after the bombing involved a real dispute. The outcome of that dispute would affect the general public or some segment of it in an appreciable way, and the ramifications of the dispute would be felt by persons who were not direct participants in the public discussion. The trial court examined P's involvement in the controversy and held that a plaintiff in a libel case must be deemed a public figure if he purposefully tries to influence the outcome of a public controversy or, because of his position in the controversy, could realistically be expected to have an impact on its resolution. The court looked to P's past conduct, the extent of press coverage, and the public reaction to his conduct and statements. P claims he did not voluntarily thrust himself to the forefront of the controversy of the safety of Olympic Park, and he did not intentionally seek to influence the resolution or outcome of any public controversy surrounding the safety of Olympic Park. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.