1.  Determining whether a person is private or public: Gertz sets
forth two alternative bases for labeling a person a public figure (as opposed to a private   citizen).  “In some instances an individual may achieve such
pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all
purposes and in all contexts” OR “more commonly, an individual
injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and
thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.”
2. Determining whether or not an issue is of private or of public
concern:  Dun & Bradstreet holds that the court should focus on the
“context [of where speech was made—in a room or in public], form [in
which speech was made—oral, written, published, etc.], and content of
the speech [did it deal with something of political or social
importance, or was it personal].
3.  Sullivan (public figure, public concern):  If there is defamation
of a public figure re a matter of public concern, then First Am.
precludes recovery to P unless P can show that D acted with “actual
malice”—that is, “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless
disregard of whether it was false or not.”
4.  Gertz (private figure, public concern):  If there is defamation
of a private individual on a matter of public concern, then First Am.
allows the libeled person to recover actual damages as long as he can
prove falsity.  In order to receive punitive damgs, then he must show
that D acted with actual malice.
5.  Dun & Bradstreet (private figure, private concern):  When a
private citizen sues concerning statements that do not involve an
issue of public interest, he can recover presumed and punitive
damages without a showing that the defendant actual malice—that D
recklessly disregarded the truth or knew of the falsity of his
statement.
6.  Hustler (recovery for IIMD for public officials—NOT defamation):
Public officials and public (not private) figures may not recover for
the tort of IIMD because of articles like Hustler’s unless these
public officials or public figures show that the publication contains
a false statement of fact which was made with “actual malice”—with
knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as
to whether or not it was true.
NOTE:  If a government employee makes the speech, then apply the
cases below under the section “Government as Employer.”