Is a witness in a US-based "in camera" trial or tribunal hearing, on a
matter related to terrorism or the trial of a terrorits, would that
witness be regarded by the law as a "public figure"? In Gertz v.
Welch, a public figure is defined someone who has "thrust themselves
into the debate." However, a witeness (who may be voluntary but also
may have have been supboenad) could argually be termed a private
figure. How would US law define such a witness -- public or private
figure? WOuld US prior restraint law prohibit publication of articles
about such witnesses who are testifying in CLOSED COURT or in IN
CAMERA proceedings? Please provide rationale, case law, etc.

With respect, may I suggest that you may be in need of a legal opinion
by someone versed in First Amendment law which is, in itself, a very,
very deep area filled with crevasses and land mines. A quicky $5
answer is bound to be insufficient.

May I suggest also that you explore the question of "judicial
immunity" which is immunity that a witness may have relative to
testimony given at a trial or hearing.

I'm sure you know the facts of Gertz v. Welch. Here are a couple of
notes on the case, where Gertz was an attorney for the deceased boy
and attended a coroner's inquest in that capacity:

Attorney who had served briefly on housing committees appointed by
mayor and had appeared at coroner's inquest into death of murder
victim but had never held any remunerative governmental position was
not "public official" within rule requiring "public official" suing
publisher or broadcaster in libel action to establish "actual malice."

Attorney who played minimal role at coroner's inquest and whose
participation related solely to his representation of private client
and who never discussed the litigation with the press and was not
quoted as having done so and did not thrust himself into vortex of
public issue or engage public's attention in attempt to influence its
outcome was not "public figure" within rule requiring "public figure,"
in suing publisher or broadcaster for libel, to establish "actual
malice."

In determining whether plaintiff in libel action is "public figure"
required to show "actual malice" of publisher or broadcaster, it is
preferable to look to nature and extent of his participation in
particular controversy giving rise to the defamation, and he should
not be deemed public personality for all aspects of his life in
absence of clear evidence of general fame or notoriety in community
and pervasive involvement in affairs of society.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/gertz.html

Good luck,
weisstho-ga