Question

The Supreme Court has defined public figures as those who have “voluntarily exposed themselves to increased risk of injury by assuming an influential role in ordering society.” When deciding whether someone is a public figure, courts look at whether this person has received press coverage, sought the public spotlight, and has the opportunity to publicly rebut the accusations. Some have argued that social media makes anyone with a public Facebook profile or a certain number of Twitter followers a public figure. Do you agree? Should the Court revisit the definition of “public figure” in light of social media?

Answer 1

The argument made by some people regarding the public figure is correct in the light of social media. These days’ social media is so much active that anyone can make himself a public figure by doing something unusual because he knows media is there to capture his actions and make him a public figure.

 

It has become very easy for any person to become public figure and claim themselves as risk taker for serving society. Court should change the definition of public figure and make some amendment which makes the rule strong and easy to recognize the public figures.

The argument made by some people regarding the public figure is correct in the light of social media.