John Dean has an interesting article up on FindLaw's Writ about the need to reform defamation law. Specifically he comments approvingly on Justice Scalia's recently expressed disagreement with New York Times v. Sullivan in that not only is the threshold of "actual malice" set too high for most plaintiffs to meet but also later cases have defined "public figure" far too broadly. I tend to agree with Dean that "public figure" is a bit broad. Just because someone got their name in the news doesn't necessarily make them a "public figure" on the same level as Bill Clinton or Donald Trump. Even if that person asked for public exposure, that may only mean he was asking for such exposure because he can't afford to buy media access. And the ability to buy media access to correct any defamatory statements is the premise of the high threshold for "public figures." So I think if there's a lowering of the standard, it should be based on the plaintiff's ability to gain media access in order to refute a defamatory statement, regardless of the actual truth or falsehood of the statement in question. If the statement's true, then it goes back to "actual malice." If it's false and the plaintiff is, say, Ted Turner, then it goes back to New York Times v. Sullivan. And if it's false and the plaintiff is like Lohrenz in Dean's example, then the case would at least go to trial.