Poor Joe the Plumber, aka Joe Wurzelbacher. He’s the Ohio citizen who was repeatedly mentioned during Senators Obama’s and McCain’s third presidential debate on October 15.
Mr. Wurzelbacher’s questioned Obama about income tax policies during a political rally and the exchange was caught on tape. During the presidential debate, McCain referred to Mr. Wurzelbacher to illustrate the distinctions between the McCain and Obama tax plans. Not only did both presidential candidates invoke Mr. Wurzelbacher’s name several times during the debate, each candidate also looked into the camera and spoke to Mr. Wurzelbacher directly throughout the evening.
The result. Instant fame for Mr. Wurzelbacher. At least fifteen minutes of it. While his new-found fame may have an upside, the downside includes some unflattering comments made about Mr. Wurzelbacher in the media as well as media discussion of personal information Mr. Wurzelbacher would probably prefer not sharing with the nation.
Even if some of the unflattering comments were false and potentially defamatory, Mr. Wurzelbacher probably wouldn’t have much luck pursuing a defamation, privacy rights violation, or similar claim. That’s because Mr. Wurzelbacher’s surprise guest appearance at the presidential debate has made him an involuntary limited purpose public figure. A limited purpose public figure is someone who is thrust to the forefront of a particular controversy or public matter. That thrust sometimes happens by accident or contrary to the wishes of the individual.
As an involuntary limited purpose public figure, Mr. Wurzelbacher is held to the same standard as a public figure with respect to any statements on subjects relevant to the controversy or public matter. For Mr. Wurzelbacher, those subject areas likely include politics, his tax and financial situation, and his job as a plumber. The public figure standard means Mr. Wurzelbacher would need to show any defamatory statements made about him were made with actual malice. In contrast, if he were considered to be a private citizen for defamation purposes, he would need to meet the much lower standard of showing that the media was negligent in making any defamatory statements.
There's a good chance any private or embarrassing facts released about him or violaitons of his privacy are "okay" per the First Amendment.