Atlanta Journal-Constitution et al. v. Jewell
555 S.E.2d 175 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who voluntarily and extensively engages with the media following a major public event becomes a limited-purpose public figure for purposes of a defamation claim related to that event. For such a claim to succeed, the individual must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defamatory statements were published with actual malice.
Facts:
- Richard Jewell was working as a security guard at Centennial Olympic Park during the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta.
- Jewell discovered a suspicious backpack, reported it to law enforcement, and assisted in evacuating the area before the bomb inside it detonated.
- In the immediate aftermath, media coverage widely portrayed Jewell as a hero.
- In the three days following the bombing, Jewell voluntarily participated in at least ten interviews with major national media outlets, including CNN, NBC's Today Show, and USA Today, as well as a photo shoot.
- During these interviews, Jewell recounted the events, discussed his law enforcement background, offered assurances about the adequacy of security, and encouraged the public to continue attending the Olympic events.
- Shortly thereafter, the FBI began investigating Jewell as a suspect in the bombing.
- The Atlanta Journal-Constitution published a front-page article identifying Jewell as the focus of the FBI's investigation, followed by other articles about his background and potential motives.
- The FBI later publicly cleared Jewell of any involvement in the bombing.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Jewell filed a defamation lawsuit against the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) and its reporters in a Georgia state trial court.
- During discovery, Jewell moved to compel the AJC to reveal its confidential sources, and the trial court granted the motion.
- After the AJC refused to comply with the discovery order, the trial court held the newspaper and two of its reporters in civil contempt, ordering the reporters to be incarcerated until they complied.
- Jewell also filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asking the court to rule that he was a private figure for the purposes of his lawsuit.
- The trial court denied Jewell's motion and ruled that he was a 'voluntary limited-purpose public figure.'
- The Atlanta Journal-Constitution appealed the contempt order, and Jewell cross-appealed the trial court's ruling on his public figure status to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual who discovers a bomb at a public event, is initially portrayed as a hero, and subsequently gives numerous media interviews about the incident and public safety, become a limited-purpose public figure, thereby requiring him to prove actual malice in a defamation claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, Presiding Judge.
Yes, an individual in this situation becomes a limited-purpose public figure. A person becomes a limited-purpose public figure by voluntarily injecting themselves into a public controversy to influence its resolution. The court applied a three-prong test from Silvester v. American Broadcasting Cos. to determine Jewell's status. First, it identified the public controversy not merely as who planted the bomb, but the broader issue of public safety at the Olympic Games. Second, the court found that Jewell voluntarily and extensively participated in this controversy by giving numerous high-profile media interviews where he did more than just recount facts; he offered assurances about security and encouraged public confidence, thereby attempting to influence the controversy's outcome. Third, the allegedly defamatory articles about his background and status as a suspect were germane to his role in the controversy, as his credibility as a reassuring figure was relevant. The court concluded that by voluntarily engaging in a course of action 'bound to invite attention and comment,' Jewell became a limited-purpose public figure and thus must meet the actual malice standard of proof.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the threshold at which a private individual involved in a newsworthy event becomes a limited-purpose public figure. It establishes that extensive, voluntary media engagement intended to influence public opinion on a matter of public concern is sufficient to change a plaintiff's status. This ruling significantly raises the burden of proof for individuals who, even if initially thrust into the spotlight, choose to actively shape the public narrative. Consequently, it makes defamation claims by such individuals much more difficult to win, thereby reinforcing broad protections for the press when reporting on public controversies and the figures involved in them.
Unlock the full brief for Atlanta Journal-Constitution et al. v. Jewell