Jessica Ott
Media Law and Ethics
Case Report No. 1
14 February 2011
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)
United States Supreme Court, June 25, 1974
Circumstances: Robert Welch, Inc. published a monthly magazine entitled American
Opinion, which spread the views of the John Birch society. The magazine warned of a
nationwide conspiracy of Communist sympathizers to frame police officers. The
magazine contained an article saying that Chicago attorney Elmer Gertz had helped frame
police officer Robert Nuccio. Gertz had represented the young man's family in a civil suit
against Nuccio. However, Gertz did not participate in the criminal case against the police
officer. The article contained several factual misstatements related to Gertz. Gertz did not
participate in any way to frame Nuccio. He was not involved in the criminal case. He also
was not a “Communist-fronter” as the article accused.
So, Gertz sued for defamation. A trial court ruled that Gertz had to show that
Robert Welch, Inc. acted with actual malice because the article discussed public issues.
Gertz argued that because he was a private person, not a public figure, he only needed to
show negligence or fault. The media defendant argued that the Times v. Sullivan standard
should apply to any plaintiff defamed as long as the published statements related to a
matter of public importance. Both a federal trial court and federal appeals court agreed.
Gertz appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Question: Does the First Amendment allow newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters to
assert defamatory falsehoods about someone who is neither a public official nor a public
figure?
Decision: The Supreme Court decided the case in a 5-4-majority opinion delivered
by Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., with a separate concurrence by Harry Blackmun. All
four dissenting justices filed separate opinions. The Court reversed the lower court
decision and held that Gertz's rights had been violated. Justice Powell argued that the
application of the New York Times v. Sullivan standard in this case was inappropriate
because Gertz was neither a public official nor a public figure. In the context of the
opinion, Powell advanced many lines of reasoning to establish that ordinary citizens
should be allowed more protection from libelous statements than individuals in the public
eye. However, continued Powell, the actual malice standard did not lose all significance
in cases involving ordinary citizens as he advised states to use it in assessing claims for
punitive damages by citizens suing for libel.
Legal Precedence (major cases):
 Public officials must show actual malice in order to recover damages in a
defamation suit. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
 Public figures must also show actual malice in order to recover damages in a
defamation suit. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967).
Summary of the dissenting opinion (very brief): Justices Burger, Douglas, Brennan and
White authored separate dissenting opinions.
Quote: “Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. … But there is
no constitutional value in false statements of fact.” (Powell)