“A public figure is one who had assumed a role of special prominence in the affairs of a society or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular public controversies. It can also be involuntary if someone has gained fame or notoriety.”
The monkey wrench in the theory above is the age of the person involved. A minor is a limited “person”, and while there certainly are public figures under 18, I’d say in this case his elevation to a public figure was… “involuntary”.
If the above was not true, why do courts and the media take great pains to hide the identities of “alleged” -or even convicted- lawbreakers under 18?
Biden and any member of Congress can basically say whatever they want no matter how outrageous while in office and the only possible punishment would be censure and/or impeachment. Biden was a private citizen and Rittenhouse was 17 at the times in question here.
Age isn’t magic protection. Bristol Palin was 17 when she was run through the ringer by the media. Lee Boyd Malvo was 16 and certainly didn’t have his identity protected.
Whether one is a public figure, (regardless of whether it’s voluntary or involuntary) is fact dependent, but Rittenhouse meets that definition.
I don’t like the entire actual malice doctrine. New York Times v. Sullivan should be overruled.