Final answer:
The courts generally use the 'voluntary involvement in an important controversy' test (Option B) to determine if a libel plaintiff qualifies as a limited-purpose public figure. Key reference point is the 1964 case, New York Times v. Sullivan. Measuring the level of involvement and intentionality helps to assign responsibility and potential damages in libel cases.
Step-by-step explanation:
In cases of libel - false information represented as fact, which is damaging to a person's reputation - the courts will apply different standards of proof depending upon whether the plaintiff is a private or public figure. This goes back to a landmark case, the New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), where the U.S. Supreme Court stated that public figures must show that the author acted with 'reckless disregard', or had malicious intent.
In determining if a libel plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure, the courts typically examine whether the plaintiff voluntarily becomes involved in trying to influence an important controversial issue (Option B). Here, the plaintiff has stepped into a public controversy and therefore, must meet a higher standard to show libel - including demonstrating that the statement was made with malice or reckless disregard of truth. The courts generally do not consider if the plaintiff was once a public official (Option D) or if public controversy was created by publication of the libelous communication (Option C) in declaring a plaintiff a limited-purpose public figure. Also, the plaintiff accidentally influencing the outcome of a public issue (Option A) does not typically qualify the person as a limited-purpose public figure.
Learn more about limited-purpose public figure