Tortsii Defamation Gertz V Robert Welch Inc

18867930.doc

892

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., Supreme Court of the US, 1974 What protection does the constitution afford publishers defaming private citizens? Issue Reasoning 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

Held Procedure

Rule Erroneous statements of fact are inevitable in free debate. The First Amendment requires that the court protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters. New York Times: o 2 types of public persons 1. Those who thrust themselves into the public eye (public figures) a. Reduce public-figure question to a more meaningful context by looking to the nature and extent of an individual’s participation 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.

Facts Gertz represented the family of a youth killed by a police officer who was convicted of 2nd degree murder. Without any attempt at verifying the facts, ∆ published an article, as an opinion, containing statements saying that Gertz was, among other things, a communist and a Leninist – these statements that were inaccurate.

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

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. 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

Private Person – Press/Broadcast Media

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

Page 1 of 1