This is true, and something I'll clarify for some posters that might be confused (Sandmann won on similar grounds to this case) from what we know, Lorenz has not done anything criminally liable. When we talk about public figure vs private, these are civil protections set forth by federal law and the Constitution that define freedom of the press. If someone is substantially "public" enough, they're free game to report on. There are myriad factors that go into this, but relevant to this case is:
1) The feeble defense Lorenz and the Washington Post has put forth that LoTT "inserted" themselves into the public discourse by *checks notes* reposting things anonymously what other people have freely and publicly put online anyway. This is the paper thin logic that most left-aligned agitators always put forth when caught doing similar things as Lorenz, because none of them have actually read the Constitution or a law.
conversely
2) That by posting anonymously, presenting third party content without comment, and using only video that was accessible to the public anyway, LoTT never intended to enter the public discourse, act as a public figure, or profile themselves as a public figure. There is a tangental argument made by Tucker Carlson and others that LoTT is engaging in ethical journalistic practices as well, and while that might be separate grounds as to why LoTT should have never been doxxed or harassed, it's not directly relevant yet.
What we're really trying to determine is civil liability, culpability, and damages. Juries, alongside everyone else, hate journos, especially journos like Lorenz. They see themselves in every plaintiff harmed by one. There are damages, and potentially considerable ones, given Lorenz's actions and previous conduct. No one is going to weep for Jeff Bezos's newspaper and their attack dog being drug behind the barn.
Ultimately, LoTT has already lawyered up, and if they can stop themselves from getting ahead of their skis, they have a very strong case. The mistake that LoTT's lawyer is already making is engaging online with people at all over this case, instead of just putting their nose to the grind and hitting WaPo where it hurts. I don't feel confident LoTT's lawyer is as terminally online as his client or the defendants, so if I had any advice for him, it would be to stay off twitter where Lorenz can perpetually incite a mob to come to her defense, and instead focus on the case, while ethical and humble fruit farmers and others fight the culture war.