Question

The Supreme Court said in Gertz v. Robert Welch that most public figures either

a) Seek public attention
b) Have significant social influence
c) Occupy positions of persuasive power and influence
d) Have voluntarily exposed themselves to increased risk of defamation

Answer 1

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, the Supreme Court stated that public figures typically assume an increased risk of defamation. Public figures must show a statement was made with malicious intent or 'reckless disregard' for the truth to win a defamation case, per the New York Times v. Sullivan precedent.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Supreme Court case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. addressed the standards of liability for defamation against private individuals. The Court determined that states could set their own liability standards as long as they did not impose liability without fault, and if the standard is lower than actual malice, only actual damages may be sought. According to the New York Times v. Sullivan Supreme Court ruling, public figures who are alleging defamation must demonstrate that the statement was not only untrue but also made with malicious intent or with 'reckless disregard' for the truth.

This stringent requirement makes it more difficult for public figures, including government officials and politicians, to silence critics through defamation lawsuits. Therefore, the Supreme Court said in Gertz v. Robert Welch, that most public figures have voluntarily exposed themselves to increased risk of defamation due to their roles.