Whether the petitioner, an unknown musician and independent filmmaker (NPR stated: "Nobody's ever heard of this guy. "), who fails to meet the requirements for a limited purpose public figure under Gertz and the line of cases that consistently require "affirmative steps, " "purposeful activity, " "voluntary " injection, or "invit[ing] public attention " See James, 40 N.Y.2d at 423, 386 N.Y.S.2d 871,353 N.E.2d 834; Lerman, 745 F.2d at 136-37; Contemporary Mission, 842 F.2d at 617; Bruno & Stillman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 633 F.2d 583, 588-89 (1st Cir.1980), who did not "thrust himself into the vortex of [a] public issue, nor did he engage the public's attention in an attempt to influence its outcome, " nor did he "voluntarily injected himself into a public controversy related to the subject of the litigation, " nor did he "maintained regular and continuing access to the media (1), " can be considered a limited purpose public figure in connection with a matter public concern, when he had no participation in the matter other than recording the album in 1989.

Considering that NPR was the only major media outlet that covered this piece of news (the cancellation of the sale of a record album (that happened 3 months before) in Discogs), which proves that this was not even a case of newsworthiness; considering that there was no "real dispute " and no "debate, " considering that it didn 't affect the general public, and considering the test developed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts (3)

Whether the petitioner, an unknown musician and independent filmmaker, who fails to meet the requirements for a limited purpose public figure under Gertz and related cases, can be considered a limited purpose public figure in connection with a matter of public concern, when he had no participation in the matter other than recording the album in 1989