Well, good for Nikki. She's certainly got a rep for being unpleasant, but she got a raw deal here.

This decision is a substantial one as to defamation, libel and slander issues, especially with respect to whether or not journalists are public figures. Under the same reasoning that was applied to Nikki's status, I probably would be deemed a public figure. That means people can make false statements about me with relative impunity. You can't make them about Nikki, though... and, generally, you can't make them about most reporters, thank God, because, as the court says, they don't have access to the media they write in to rebut such false or defamatory statements. Publishers and editors do. I think the journalists among us ought to read this decision with special care.

Correct me if my j-school education shows its age, but I could have sworn that people who become public figures, even if not by choice, are subject to a higher standard for proving libel and slander. I recall Richard Jewell having been near this standard, but eventually fell to the lower (easier) standard. So, if reporters can, by acting en masse, make someone into an unwilling public fiugure, how is it that someone who voluntarily ascribes his/her name to article of a voluntary pen not also be a public figure?