Anthony Michael Branch v. Aidan T. Kearney, et al.

11 INTRODUCTION This petition presents a stark example of how online publishers can create their own “public figure,” insist on the heightened actual-malice standard, and escape liability under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). The Massachusetts courts retroactively branded Petitioner a limited-purpose public figure based solely on defamatory publications about him. They then granted summary judgment without submitting actual malice, despite abundant evidence of knowing falsity and reckless disregard to a jury. That holding conflicts squarely with Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (1976), Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, 443 U.S. 157 (1979), and Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., All U.S. 242 (1986). This Court’s review is needed to restore predictable defamation standards in the digital age QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has determined in Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (1976), rejected the argument that a person becomes a public figure merely because they are involved in matters of public concern. Similarly, in Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, 443 U.S. 157 (1979), this Court ruled that public interest in an individual's activities does not convert them into a public figure. This case epitomizes self-proclaimed media defendants resorting to vindictive measures using their social media and cyber followers after the Petitioner did not settle a civil suit for defamation in the Massachusetts Courts. It is clear from the record that respondents intended to prejudice the community and any prospective jury should the case proceed to trial while ruining the Petitioner’s life. The respondents made that abundantly clear. As Justice Thomas articulated, “...comes at a heavy cost, allowing media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.’” This case proceeded through the normal course of trial court proceedings, ultimately resulting in dismissal in favor of respondents. The Petitioner appealed, which was denied. The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled the Petitioner was a public figure despite his public status emerging only after defamatory statements were made.