Gertz v.

Robert Welch
418 U.S. 323
June 25, 1974
Prepared by: Jeremiah Virata
FACTS:
Petitioner Elmer Gertz was an attorney who represented the family of Nelson in a
homicide case against Nuccio, a police officer in Chicago which ultimately led to the
conviction of the latter. On the other hand, respondent Robert Welch was a publisher of
a monthly outlet called the American Opinion. The articles in the magazine warned the
public about a conspiracy to tarnish the credibility of local law enforcement as part of the
Communist campaign against the police. In furtherance of that purpose they published
an article entitled FRAME-UP: Richard Nuccio and the War on Police which portrayed
the petitioner in a false light. The article claimed that petitioner is a Leninist and was
an official of the Marxist League for Industrial Democracy among other things which
the petitioner totally denies. Petitioner filed a libel action against the respondent. The
district court ruled that the leading case of New York Times v. Sullivan standard should
apply in the case. This meant that the Respondent escaped liability unless the Petitioner
proved that a defamatory falsehood was published with actual malice and reckless
disregard for the truth. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether a newspaper or broadcaster that publishes defamatory falsehoods
about an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure may claim a
constitutional privilege against liability for the injury inflicted by those statements.
HELD:
NO. The immunity from liability granted to the press by the New York Times
standard only applies to statements or speech directed to public figures and officials
because they voluntarily and readily expose themselves to media scrutiny unlike private
individuals. Public persons have greater access in communicating with the media to
refute said falsehoods against them than a private person thus it would be difficult for
the latter to seek redress and keep their reputation unblemished without going to courts.
We hold that, 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.