|
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. – 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1974)
Facts
An attorney Elmer Gertz (plaintiff) was hired by the Nelson family whose son was killed by a Chicago policeman named Richard Nuccio. American Opinion, a monthly magazine which represents a right-wing political view, reported this incident. In their effort to support and protect local law enforcement agencies, they published and distributed an article which depicted the plaintiff as an active communist who is against the innocent police. The article accused him of being "Leninist" or a "Communist-fronter” without any base, and it also included several faulty statements such as the plaintiff having a criminal record, being part of planning the 1968 demonstrations in Chicago. The plaintiff instituted this suit against the defendant. The district court held for the defendant under freedom of speech. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issue
In a defamation suit involving a lawyer, a private citizen, may the court apply New York Times standard to establish a claim which requires proof of actual malice?
Rules
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) – public figure에게만 적용
the respondent would escape liability unless 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.
The States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual. … But may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages, at least when liability is not based on a showing of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Application
The plaintiff claimed that the falsehoods published by the defendant injured his reputation as a lawyer and a citizen which constitutes defamation. The defendant argued that unless the plaintiff proves the publication of defamatory falsehood with actual malice, it cannot be held liable. Here, the plaintiff was neither a public official nor a public figure. Regardless of such fact, the District Court concluded that the New York Times standard, a publication of defamatory falsehood with actual malice is required for the public figure, should govern in this case. Since the defendant did not have actual malice, the court was in favor of the defendant. This court disagreed with such an application. By applying the same standard, the private individual who has less assets to prove actual malice would stand in a negative position. Thus, the state may decide their own appropriate standard of liability for a publisher of defamatory falsehood to a private individual. But still, the publisher may still show some knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Because application of New York Times rule was erroneous, this court reversed the judgment.
Holding
No, the New York Times standard is inapplicable for private citizens.
Conclusion
Reversed and remanded.
Feedback and notes
Libel is written defamation, as in a book. Slander is defamation through spoken words.
At the first session we talked about how to calculate reputation. It is easy to spot the different reputation between the public figure and private person. However, if there are two public officials or figures- the given example was ex-president Trump and Elon Musk. How should we calculate their reputation and give more damages? May things come into account. Such as their social status, reputation, history of life, annual salaries etc. The most confusing part of today’s discussion was how to distinguish opinion and facts. Newspaper articles, for example, are facts. But when the reporter makes personal statements even though he adds “I firmly believe” it can be mere opinion. Opinion tends to be more vague than facts. Further, although some lawyers often expose themselves to the media, this fact alone does not establish the person as a public figure. To be a public figure, the exposure must be made in a regularly continuous manner in main media outlets.
|