Yes. By choosing to become one of the first female combat pilots, she voluntarily stepped into the middle of a big public debate. The court explained that there was a well-known public argument about women in combat. When Lohrenz chose to fly the F-14, she had to know her success would make her a central figure in that argument. She wasn't just any pilot; she was a pioneer. Because she took on this special, high-profile role, she is considered a 'limited-purpose public figure.' This means that to win a lawsuit about lies told about her flying, she has to prove the person who lied knew they were lying or recklessly didn't care if it was true—a very high standard called 'actual malice.' The court decided she couldn't prove that.

Yes, the court made the right decision. By choosing to be a combat pilot and becoming one of the first women to do so, Lohrenz put herself in the middle of the public debate about women in combat. This made her a voluntary public figure for this specific controversy because the allegedly false statements were related to her role as a female combat pilot. Lohrenz didn't have clear and convincing proof that Donnelly and her organization published the statements while knowing they were false, highly unlikely to be true, or based on an unreliable source. The court said that just because Lohrenz strongly denied the claims doesn't mean the defendants knew they were false, and the fact that they included the Navy's opposing views suggests they didn't act with bad intentions.

But a plaintiff can show actual malice if he can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that defendant was "subjectively aware that it was highly probable that the story was (1) fabricated;(2) so inherently improbable that only a reckless person would have put it in circulation; or (3) based wholly on an unverified anonymous telephone call or some other source that …

—female Navy pilot injected herself into public controversy over women in combat and became a limited purpose public figure by choosing to fly combat aircraft

It is generally true that "reporting perspectives at odds with the publisher's own, `tend [s] to rebut a claim of malice, not to establish one [,]'"

The District of Columbia Circuit set forth a three-prong test to determine whether a plaintiff has become a limited-purpose public figure.

P] ublishers need not accept `denials, however vehement; such denials are so commonplace in the world of polemical charge and countercharge that, in themselves, they hardly alert the conscientious reporter to the likelihood of error

Moreover, the plaintiff is "entitled" to "the benefit of the aggregate of [the] evidence" concerning actual malice.

A failure to investigate only arises to the level of malice where the defendant also has "obvious reasons to doubt the accuracy of a story."

To resolve that question, this Court considers "the plaintiff's past conduct, the extent of press coverage, and the public reaction to his conduct or statements."

Here, the Court is particularly "mindful that `the touchstone'of the limited-purpose public figure analysis "is determining" `whether [Dabek] has assumed [a] role [] of especial prominence in the affairs of society...[that] invite [s] attention and comment.'"

The law is clear, however, that a book publisher has no independent duty to investigate an author's story unless the publisher has actual, subjective doubts as to the accuracy of the story.

Yes. A person becomes a voluntary limited-purpose public figure by assuming a role of special prominence in a public controversy. The court applied the three-part test from Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, Inc. First, it identified a clear, pre-existing public controversy concerning women in military combat roles. Second, the court found that Lohrenz achieved 'special prominence' in this controversy not by seeking media attention, but by her voluntary choice to train for the F-14. By 'choosing combat aviation,' she knew of the controversy and assumed the risk that a successful combat assignment would place her at its center. Third, the allegedly defamatory statements regarding her competence as a pilot were directly germane to her role in that controversy. Because Lohrenz voluntarily assumed this prominent role, she became a limited-purpose public figure and was therefore required to prove the defendants acted with actual malice, which she failed to do.

Yes, the district court did not err because Lohrenz, by choosing combat aviation and becoming one of the first women combat pilots, assumed a role of special prominence in the public controversy over women in combat roles. Therefore, she became a voluntary limited-purpose public figure because the alleged defamations were germane to her position as a woman combat pilot. Lohrenz failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Donnelly and CMR acted with actual malice, which requires showing they were subjectively aware the story was fabricated, inherently improbable, or based on an unreliable source. The court noted that vehement denials by the plaintiff do not in themselves indicate actual malice, and a publisher's inclusion of perspectives at odds with their own tends to rebut a claim of malice.

Lohrenz, Carey v. Donnelly, Elaine

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot