Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc 8212 617, No. 72

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPOWELL
Citation94 S.Ct. 2997,418 U.S. 323,41 L.Ed.2d 789
Docket NumberNo. 72
Decision Date25 June 1974
PartiesElmer GERTZ, Petitioner, v. ROBERT WELCH, INC. —617

418 U.S. 323
94 S.Ct. 2997
41 L.Ed.2d 789
Elmer GERTZ, Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT WELCH, INC.

No. 72—617.
Argued Nov. 14, 1973.
Decided June 25, 1974.

Syllabus

A Chicago policeman named Nuccio was convicted of murder. The victim's family retained petitioner, a reputable attorney, to represent them in civil litigation against Nuccio. An article appearing in respondent's magazine alleged that Nuccio's murder trial was part of a Communist conspiracy to discredit the local police, and it falsely stated that petitioner had arranged Nuccio's 'frameup,' implied that petitioner had a criminal record, and labeled him a 'Communist-fronter.' Petitioner brought this diversity libel action against respondent. After the jury returned a verdict for petitioner, the District Court decided that the standard enunciated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, which bars media liability for defamation of a public official absent proof that the defamatory statements were published with knowledge of their falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth, should apply to this suit. The court concluded that that standard protects media discussion of a public issue without regard to whether the person defamed is a public official as in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, or a public figure, as in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094. The court found that petitioner had failed to prove knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth and therefore entered judgment n.o.v. for respondent. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Held:

1. A publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehoods about an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure may not claim the New York Times protection against liability for defamation on the ground that the defamatory statements concern an issue of public or general interest. Pp. 339—348.

(a) Because private individuals characteristically have less effective opportunities for rebuttal than do public officials and public figures, they are more vulnerable to injury from defamation. Because they have not voluntarily exposed themselves to increased risk of injury from defamatory falsehoods, they are also more deserving of recovery. The state interest in compensat-

Page 324

ing injury to the reputation of private individuals is therefore greater than for public officials and public figures. Pp. 343—345.

(b) To extend the New York Times standard to media defamation of private persons whenever an issue of general or public interest is involved would abridge to an unacceptable degree the legitimate state interest in compensating private individuals for injury to reputation and would occasion the additional difficulty of forcing courts to decide on an ad hoc basis which publications and broadcasts address issues of general or public interest and which do not. Pp. 345—346.

(c) 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 which injures a private individual and whose substance makes substantial danger to reputation apparent. Pp. 347—348.

2. The States, however, may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages when liability is not based on knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, and the private defamation plaintiff who establishes liability under a less demanding standard than the New York Times test may recover compensation only for actual injury. Pp. 348—350.

3. Petitioner was neither a public official nor a public figure. Pp. 351—352.

(a) Neither petitioner's past service on certain city committees nor his appearance as an attorney at the coroner's inquest into the death of the murder victim made him a public official. P. 351.

(b) Petitioner was also not a public figure. Absent clear evidence of general fame or notoriety in the community and pervasive involvement in ordering the affairs of society, an individual should not be deemed a public figure for all aspects of his life. Rather, the public-figure question should be determined by reference to the individual's participation in the particular controversy giving rise to the defamation. Petitioner's role in the Nuccio affair did not make him a public figure. Pp. 351—352.

7 Cir., 471 F.2d 801, reversed and remanded.

Page 325

Wayne B. Giampietro, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.

Clyde J. Watts, Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondent.

Mr. Justice POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

This Court has struggled for nearly a decade to define the proper accommodation between the law of defamation and the freedoms of speech and press protected by the First Amendment. With this decision we return to that effort. We granted certiorari to reconsider the extent of a publisher's constitutional privilege against liability for defamation of a private citizen. 410 U.S. 925, 93 S.Ct. 1355, 35 L.Ed.2d 585 (1973).

I

In 1968 a Chicago policeman named Nuccio shot and killed a youth named Nelson. The state authorities prosecuted Nuccio for the homicide and ultimately obtained a conviction for murder in the second degree. The Nelson family retained petitioner Elmer Gertz, a reputable attorney, to represent them in civil litigation against Nuccio.

Respondent publishes American Opinion, a monthly outlet for the views of the John Birch Society. Early in the 1960's the magazine began to warn of a nationwide conspiracy to discredit local law enforcement agencies and create in their stead a national police force capable of supporting a Communist dictatorship. As part of the continuing effort to alert the public to this assumed danger, the managing editor of American Opinion commissioned an article on the murder trial of Officer Nuccio. For this purpose he engaged a regular contributor to the magazine. In March 1969 respondent published the resulting article under the title 'FRAME-UP: Richard

Page 326

Nuccio And The War On Police.' The article purports to demonstrate that the testimony against Nuccio at his criminal trial was false and that his prosecution was part of the Communist campaign against the police.

In his capacity as counsel for the Nelson family in the civil litigation, petitioner attended the coroner's inquest into the boy's death and initiated actions for damages, but he neither discussed Officer Nuccio with the press nor played any part in the criminal proceeding. Notwithstanding petitioner's remote connection with the prosecution of Nuccio, respondent's magazine portrayed him as an architect of the 'frame-up.' According to the article, the police file on petitioner took 'a big, Irish cop to lift.' The article stated that petitioner had been an official of the 'Marxist League for Industrial Democracy, originally known as the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, which has advocated the violent seizure of our government.' It labeled Gertz a 'Leninist' and a 'Communist-fronter.' It also stated that Gertz had been an officer of the National Lawyers Guild, described as a Communist organization that 'probably did more than any other outfit to plan the Communist attack on the Chicago police during the 1968 Democratic Convention.'

These statements contained serious inaccuracies. The implication that petitioner had a criminal record was false. Petitioner had been a member and officer of the National Lawyers Guild some 15 years earlier, but there was no evidence that he or that organization had taken any part in planning the 1968 demonstrations in Chicago. There was also no basis for the charge that petitioner was a 'leninist' or a 'Communist-fronter.' And he had never been a member of the 'Marxist League for Industrial Democracy' or the 'Intercollegiate Socialist Society.'

Page 327

The managing editor of American Opinion made no effort to verify or substantiate the charges against petitioner. Instead, he appended an editorial introduction stating that the author had 'conducted extensive research into the Richard Nuccio Case.' And he included in the article a photograph of petitioner and wrote the caption that appeared under it: 'Elmer Gertz of Red Guild harasses Nuccio.' mespondent placed the issue of American Opinion containing the article on sale at newsstands throughout the country and distributed reprints of the article on the streets of Chicago.

Petitioner filed a diversity action for libel in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He claimed that the falsehoods published by respondent injured his reputation as a lawyer and a citizen. Before filing an answer, respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, apparently on the ground that petitioner failed to allege special damages. But the court ruled that statements contained in the article constituted libel per se under Illinois law and that consequently petitioner need not plead special damages. 306 F.Supp. 310 (1969).

After answering the complaint, respondent filed a pretrial motion for summary judgment, claiming a constitutional privilege against liability for defamation. 1 It asserted that petitioner was a public official or a public figure and that the article concerned an issue of public interest and concern. For these reasons, respondent argued, it was entitled to invoke the privilege enunciated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). Under this rule respondent would escape liability unless

Page 328

petitioner could prove publication of defamatory falsehood 'with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.' Id., at 279 280, 84 S.Ct., at 726. Respondent claimed that petitioner could not make such a showing and submitted a supporting affidavit by the magazine's managing editor. The editor denied any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3841 practice notes
  • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Foust, No. 78-38
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 29, 1979
    ...are private fines levied by civil juries to punish reprehensible conduct and to deter its future occurrence." Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 350, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3012, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974).10 In respondent's view, this extraordinary sanction is necessary to vindicate an employee......
  • Pearce v. EF Hutton Group, Inc., Civ. A. No. 86-0008.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • July 14, 1987
    ...has recognized that statements of opinion are absolutely exempt from libel suits under the first amendment. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974) (dictum); see also Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970, 974-75 (D.C.Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 471 U.......
  • Stevens v. Town of Snow Hill, No. 4:19-CV-156-D
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina
    • June 8, 2021
    ...defame a limited-purpose public figure. See Carr v. Forbes, Inc., 259 F.3d 273, 278 (4th Cir. 2001); see also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347-48, 351 (1974); Hatfill v. N.Y. Times Co., 488 F. Supp. 2d 522, 527 (E.D. Va. 2007). A party publishes a statement with actual malice ......
  • INTERN. SOC. FOR KRISHNA, ETC. v. Barber, No. 77 CV 328.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • August 25, 1980
    ...the Court held: Untruthful speech, commercial or otherwise, has never been protected for its own sake. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 340 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3007, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974); Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36, 49, and n. 10 81 S.Ct. 997, 1006, 6 L.Ed.2d 105 (1961). Obv......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3818 cases
  • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Foust, No. 78-38
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 29, 1979
    ...are private fines levied by civil juries to punish reprehensible conduct and to deter its future occurrence." Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 350, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3012, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974).10 In respondent's view, this extraordinary sanction is necessary to vindicate an employee......
  • Pearce v. EF Hutton Group, Inc., Civ. A. No. 86-0008.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • July 14, 1987
    ...has recognized that statements of opinion are absolutely exempt from libel suits under the first amendment. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974) (dictum); see also Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970, 974-75 (D.C.Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 471 U.......
  • Stevens v. Town of Snow Hill, No. 4:19-CV-156-D
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina
    • June 8, 2021
    ...defame a limited-purpose public figure. See Carr v. Forbes, Inc., 259 F.3d 273, 278 (4th Cir. 2001); see also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347-48, 351 (1974); Hatfill v. N.Y. Times Co., 488 F. Supp. 2d 522, 527 (E.D. Va. 2007). A party publishes a statement with actual malice ......
  • INTERN. SOC. FOR KRISHNA, ETC. v. Barber, No. 77 CV 328.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • August 25, 1980
    ...the Court held: Untruthful speech, commercial or otherwise, has never been protected for its own sake. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 340 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3007, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974); Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36, 49, and n. 10 81 S.Ct. 997, 1006, 6 L.Ed.2d 105 (1961). Obv......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 books & journal articles
  • COMPUTER CRIMES
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Nbr. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...(“U.S. law does not recognize the notion of ‘harassment’ directed at a general class of persons.”). 207. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 340, 347, 349 (1974). A public off‌icial, however, must still prove actual malice. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 281 (1......
  • Remedies and Respect: Rethinking the Role of Federal Judicial Relief
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal Nbr. 109-6, August 2021
    • August 1, 2021
    ...no monetary dam-age was proven.424 Though disrespectful treatment sometimes warranted more 416. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 381 (1974) (White, J., dissenting) (noting the long history of the common law of libel in colonial America); Seth F. Kreimer, “Spooky Action at a Di......
  • SEARCHING FOR TRUTH IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S TRUE THREAT DOCTRINE.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 120 Nbr. 4, February 2022
    • February 1, 2022
    ...result in a deterrence of speech which the Constitution makes free.' " (quoting Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526(1958))). (210.) 418 U.S. 323,339-40(1974). (211.) See Len Niehoff & Ashley Messenger, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Twenty-Five Years Later: The Slow, Quiet, and Troubled ......
  • List of Cases Referenced
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly Nbr. 28-1, March 1975
    • March 1, 1975
    ...411 U.S. 677 (1973)Fuller v. Oregon, 94 S.Ct. 2117 (1974)Geduldig v. Aiello, 94 S.Ct. 2485 (1974) Gertz v. Robert Welsh, Inc., 94 S.Ct. 2997 (1974) Gilmore v. Montgomery, 94 S.Ct. 2416 (1974)Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260 (1973)Hamling v. United States, 94 S.Ct. 2887 (1974) Harris v. Ne......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT