Final answer:
The statement is false; even individuals who inadvertently become involved in a public controversy can be considered public figures in the context of defamation law. The Supreme Court has set a higher threshold for public figures to prove defamation, requiring them to show actual malice, as established in the New York Times v. Sullivan case.
Step-by-step explanation:
The claim that individuals whose actions inadvertently push them into a public controversy have never been regarded as public figures is false. In defamation law, a public figure is someone who has gained prominence in the society, or is involved in public affairs, possibly becoming a focal point for public attention due to their actions, even if such actions are unintentional. The landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan established that public figures face a higher burden of proof for defamation. They must show that a statement was made with 'actual malice' - knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.
Not simply public officials, but individuals who become enmeshed in public controversies can also be considered as public figures, especially if they have taken an influential role in the controversy. However, the courts determine on a case-by-case basis depending on the individual's fame, notoriety, or voluntary involvement in a particular public issue.
For example, when the Star magazine published misleading information about actress Katie Holmes, implying she was addicted to drugs, the distinction between private and public figures played a crucial role in resolving the resultant defamation claim. Therefore, it is clear that even involuntary public figures have a more challenging path to claim defamation.