18867930.

doc 892

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., Supreme Court of the US, 1974 Private Person – Press/Broadcast Media
Issue What protection does the constitution afford publishers defaming private citizens?

Reasoning Rule Facts

There is constitutional utility to opinions (they compete
with other ideas) – but no utility to false statements of fact
– they do not advance society.
There is some conflict between States interest in
compensating defamed individuals and the need for
vigorous and uninhibited press.
NY Times rule is a solution for self-censorship.
Self Help: Public officials have easier access to the media
to correct any errors – private people are more vulnerable
to injury.
Public persons assume the risk of scrutiny. Media can
assume that public people themselves to increased risk of
injury from defamatory falsehood.
Private citizens are deserving of recovery.
Actual injuries (with complete evidence):
o Out of pocket loss
o Impairment to reputation
o Standing in the community
o Personal humiliation
o Mental anguish and suffering
Erroneous statements of fact are inevitable in free debate. Gertz represented the family of a
youth killed by a police officer
The First Amendment requires that the court protect some falsehood in order to protect who was convicted of 2nd degree
speech that matters. murder. Without any attempt at
verifying the facts, ∆ published
New York Times: an article, as an opinion,
o 2 types of public persons containing statements saying that
1. Those who thrust themselves into the public eye (public figures) Gertz was, among other things, a
a. Reduce public-figure question to a more meaningful context by communist and a Leninist – these
looking to the nature and extent of an individual’s participation statements that were inaccurate.
in the particular controversy giving rise to the defamation
2. Government/Public officials
o Clear and convincing evidence proof that falsehood was made with knowledge
or reckless disregard for truth.
o Privilege available to publishers and broadcasters of defamatory falsehood
concerning public officials and public figures.
So long as they do not impose liability without fault, the states may define for
themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of
defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual.
If ∏ can’t show knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard, then recovery will be limited
to actual damages (will no longer presume damage). If can show, then can recover
presumed and punitive damages as under NY v. Sullivan.1

Held Gertz is not a public figure – he did not take part in the criminal prosecution; did not discuss the case publicly. NY std is not applicable
Reversing and Remanding because Jury was allowed to presume damages and imposed liability without fault.
Procedure Gertz filed a libel suit. Trial court said: Gertz is not a public official or public figure and ruled in his favor. District court said that New York Times rule applies and
reversed. Court of Appeals affirmed. Gertz appeals.
P argues
D argues

1
Is this true??? Punitive allowed if can show? Para on 898 – does it conflict with para at bottom?

Page 1 of 1