1. Facts of Case:

A national magazine publication, American Opinion, published a story concerning the 1968 shooting of a Chicago youth by a Chicago police officer. The officer was found guilty of second-degree murder by the Illinois state court and a civil suit was later brought on the officer by the victim’s family. Hired as attorney for the civil suit’s plaintiff was a man named Elmer Gertz.

As part of the magazine’s greater claims of a national conspiracy to devalue local police and put in their place a national police force suited to maintain a communist dicatatorship, the magazine’s article specifically targeted Gertz’s character for his involvement in the civil suit, despite the fact he had no arguable affiliation with the criminal case. The article accused Gertz of being member to communist organizations, having an extensive criminal record and of being an anti-American communist generally. Most to all of these allegations were wholly unfactual. Gertz sued for libel.

2. Legal Issue

The central legal issue in this case is the question of whether a news publication/broadcast can cite constitutional privelege protection as a defense against libel charges brought by a private party, according to the precedent laid down in New York Times v. Sullivan, which insulated media entities to some degree from libel liability for inaccurate information published without proof of actual malice.

3. Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings in favor of the magazine. The precedent established for public figures in Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court said, cannot be applied to private parties. The Court also dismissed the defendant’s assertion that Gertz could be considered a public figure because of his affiliation with the case. This case was sent back down to lower courts for a retrial under the newly established precedent.

4. Analysis

The Court said that private citizens have a diminished access to mass communication channels that could enable them to adjust their public esteem by countering the defamatory falsehoods published by the libeling party, which affords private citizens a greater level of protection. Private citizens do not invite themselves to the higher degree of public scrutiny, the Court said, that is inextricably tied to one who voluntarily assumes a postion of public prominence.

As for the magazine’s contention that Gertz was a public entity due to his affiliation with the case, the court ruled that nothing he had done justified an interpretation of him as a public figure.

5. Questions

  • Courts have determined that celebrities can be considered public figures due to their ability to influence the opinions of a great many people, as well as the public’s heightened interest in them. Where should this line be drawn? At what point does a person achieve a sufficient celebrity status to deem them a public figure?
  • Should individuals who have through their accomplishments and affiliations achieved a degree of fame in the public be subject to the same scrutiny as standing government officials?
  • Another issue in this case was criticism of the unpredictability of jurys’ punitive damage awards in libel cases. How should appropriate compensation for these damages be measured?