Torts

Brief

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

Procedural History:

• The trial judge originally ruled that Getz was not a public official or public figure and under Illinois law there was no defense and the jury awarded $50,000.
  • However on further reflection, the judge decided that since a matter of public concern was being discussed, the Times rule should apply and he granted the defendant judgment.
• Appealed.
• Affirmed.
• Appealed.
• Reverse and Remand for further proceedings.

Facts:

• Plaintiff is an attorney and was retained to represent the family of a youth killed by Nuccio, a Chicago policeman.
• The plaintiff thus attended the coroner’s inquest and filed and action for damages but played no part in a criminal proceeding in which Nuccio was convicted.
• The Respondent American Opinion which was a monthly outlet for the views of the John Birch Society.
• An article appeared which charged a frame-up against Nuccio and portrayed the plaintiff as a major architect of the plot.
• The article also falsely said he had a long police record, was an official of the Marxist League for Industrial Democracy, and was a ‘Leninist’ and a ‘Communist Frontier.
  • The editor had no reason to doubt the charges and made no effort to verify them.

Issue:

• Was the New York Times standard appropriately applied to this case?

Holding:

• No. Reversed and Remanded.

Reasoning:

• The court first addresses the idea of strict liability for defamation and concludes that compelling a publisher or broadcaster to guarantee the accuracy of their factual assertions may lead to intolerable self-censorship.
• The court next addressed the differences between public figures and private individuals and the differences in protecting their rights/reputations.
  • Public figures have a remedy available to them of self-help because they have access to opportunities to refute the lies or correct the errors.
  • Private individuals however do not have access and therefore are more vulnerable to injury, and the state interest in protecting them is correspondingly greater.
• The court therefore concludes that the States should retain substantial latitude in their efforts to enforce a legal remedy for defamatory falsehood injurious to the reputation of a private individual.
• In the present case, respondent contends that petitioner is a public official or a public figure, but at the time of publication, he had never held any remunerative government position.
  • He had also received no fame or notoriety in the community.
• Therefore, the court concludes that petitioner was not a public figure and therefore the Times standard does not apply in the present case.