The plaintiff in Rosanova did not even argue he was not a public figure; he only argued that he should not have become one. Rosanova, 580 F.2d at 861. Rosanova does not support defendants’ argument; the court rejects their contentions, and it sympathizes with the views of the Georgia court and the fifth circuit. Defendants also contend that plaintiff must show they acted with malice, regardless of her status as a public or private figure. Section 652E of the Second Restatement of Torts provides that one of the elements of false light publicity is that the defendant had knowledge of the falsity of his statement or reckless disregard for whether the statement was true. Section 652E has been adopted by the Kansas courts. Rinsley v. Frydman, 221 Kan. 297, 303, 559 P.2d 334, 339 (1977) (<HOLDING>); see also Rinsley v. Brandt, 700 F.2d 1304,
recognizing that kansas supreme court would accept the final draft of the restatement second of torts  652e adopted in 1977 recognizing that restatement second of torts  323 and 324a correctly state pennsylvania law recognizing that restatement second of torts   416 to 429 are often overlapping recognizing kansas courts adoption of restatement second of torts  909 1977 recognizing tentative draft of restatement second of torts  652e