Read more about Michigan’s proposed Anti-SLAPP legislation, HB 4045
The “right to be left alone” is one of the most quietly radical ideas in American law.
First articulated by Justice Louis Brandeis in 1890, it’s the foundation of our modern concept of privacy; the belief that citizens have the right to control their own narratives and be free from unwarranted intrusion.
Yet in the digital age, that right is constantly under siege, especially for those who work in journalism.
Journalists occupy a paradoxical space: they are visible, outspoken, and often controversial, but that visibility does not automatically make them public figures. Understanding where that line is drawn matters, particularly as journalists face increasing harassment, defamation threats, and doxxing campaigns by public officials and private citizens alike.
Private Citizen, Professional Role
A journalist doing their job (asking questions, filing FOIAs, publishing investigations) remains a private citizen engaged in protected speech, not a public figure. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the distinction between a private and public figure determines the level of protection in defamation and privacy cases.
In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Court established that a person becomes a public figure only if they have “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies” or have “achieved pervasive fame or notoriety.” Simply being known locally, writing controversial stories, or having a public social media presence doesn’t meet that threshold. Most working reporters, even those with bylines, are not “public figures” under the law.
Put simply: doing your job does not forfeit your right to privacy. And being forced to speak out or pushed into the limelight, does not make a public figure make.
When a Journalist Becomes a Public Figure
There are, however, narrow circumstances when a journalist may cross that legal line:
- Voluntary Participation in a Public Controversy: If a journalist becomes a central participant in the story, for example, by willingly inserting themselves into political or celebrity debates beyond their professional reporting, courts may view them as a limited-purpose public figure for that controversy. Note the word willingly, not being dragged in, reporting out of necessity to document the truth.
- Pervasive Fame or Influence: National anchors, media executives, or celebrity journalists with wide public recognition (think Anderson Cooper or Tucker Carlson) would more likely qualify as all-purpose public figures, because their notoriety transcends a single issue.
- Use of Platforms for Advocacy: When a journalist consistently uses their platform to advocate for a specific cause or engage in partisan politics, courts may find that they’ve stepped beyond neutral reporting into active influence, blurring the line between journalism and activism.
Even then, public figure status applies narrowly; limited to the context in which the journalist inserted themselves, not their entire professional identity. They are the individuals who deliberately shape debate on particular public issues, especially those who use the media to influence that debate.
This category entails individuals who have distinguished themselves in a particular field, making them “public figures” regarding only those specific activities.
The Weaponization of Public Figure Claims
Unfortunately, some public officials and bad-faith actors have begun weaponizing the “public figure” label to justify harassment or evade accountability. The backward logic goes something like this: “If you write about me, you’re fair game.”
But that’s legally and ethically false.
Being a journalist doesn’t mean you surrender your safety, privacy, or humanity. The First Amendment protects robust debate; not retaliation. Courts consistently reject attempts to classify local or independent reporters as public figures simply to raise the legal bar for defamation or to excuse targeted attacks.
All-purpose public figures are individuals who occupy “positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figure for all purposes. . . . They invite attention and comment.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1972). For these individuals, the actual malice standard extends to virtually all aspects of their lives.
Reclaiming the Right to Privacy in Public Work
Every journalist, from newsroom veterans to freelance investigators, deserves the same baseline of dignity: the right to do their work without being accosted or publicly misrepresented.
The right to be left alone is not a retreat from transparency; it’s a demand for boundaries in an era where exposure has become currency and cruelty has become common.
Accountability journalism requires courage, but it shouldn’t require surrendering your own right to peace.
