8/20/2009

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell - Wikipedi

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46

(1988), the United States Supreme Court held, in a
unanimous 8-0 decision (Justice Kennedy took no part in
the consideration or decision of the case), that the First
Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding
damages to public figures to compensate for emotional
distress intentionally inflicted upon them.
Thus, Hustler magazine's parody of Jerry Falwell was
deemed to be within the law, leading to a reversal of the
jury verdict in favor of Falwell, who had previously been
awarded $200,000 in damages by a lower court.

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued December 2, 1987
Decided February 24, 1988
Full case
name

Hustler Magazine and Larry C.

Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell

Citations

485 U.S. 46 (more)

108 S. Ct. 876; 99 L. Ed. 2d 41;
1988 U.S. LEXIS 941; 56 U.S.L.W.
4180; 14 Media L. Rep. 2281

Contents

Prior history Judgment for plaintiff, W.D. Va.;

affirmed, 797 F.2d 1270 (4th Cir.
1986); rehearing denied, 4th Cir.,
11-4-86; cert. granted, 480 U.S.
945 (1987)

1 Background of the case

2 Majority opinion
3 Dramatization
4 See also
5 Notes
6 Further reading
7 External links

Subsequent
history

Holding

Background of the case

While "Hustler"
magazine has always
been known for its
expliciteven
gynecological
pictures of nude
women and for what
many consider crude
humor, the prominent
fundamentalist
Protestant minister
wikipedia.org//Hustler_Magazine_

None

The creators of parodies of public figures are

protected against civil liability by the First
Amendment, unless the parody includes false
statements of fact made in knowing or reckless
disregard of the truth. Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan, Jr. Byron White
Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
Majority

Rehnquist, joined by Brennan,

1/4

8/20/2009

Hustler's parody, depicted in

the above scan, includes the
unauthorized use of a publicity
photograph of Falwell and a
near-exact duplicate of the
typesetting used in a
concurrent Campari
advertising campaign. [1]

Hustler Magazine v. FalwellMajority

- Wikipedi

Rehnquist, joined by Brennan,

Jerry Falwell found

Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens,
O'Connor, Scalia
nothing funny about
satire the magazine
Concurrence White
printed in 1983
Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the
targeted at him. In a
case.
parody of a magazine
Laws applied
advertisement for a
U.S. Const. amend. I
popular alcoholic
drink, Hustler
described a drunk Falwell having an incestuous encounter with his mother in
an outhouse.

The satire at issue was a takeoff of an advertising campaign for Campari, an Italian apritif. The real ads were
tongue-in-cheek interviews with celebrities talking about their first time. The ads played off a double entendre,
with the headline (X talks about his first time) and the interview first sounding like a discussion of the stars
first sexual experience, then revealing that the discussion actually concerned the subject's first time drinking
Campari.
The Hustler parody featured a picture of Falwell, and an "interview" in which "Falwell" describes his first sexual
experience as occurring with Mom in an outhouse while both were "drunk off our God-fearing asses on
Campari." In the spoof interview, "Falwell" goes on to say that he was so intoxicated that "Mom looked better
than a Baptist whore with a $100 donation," that he decided to have sex with his mother since she had "showed
all the other guys in town such a good time" and that they had intercourse regularly afterwards. Finally, when
asked if he had tried Campari since, "Falwell" answered, "I always get sloshed before I go out to the pulpit. You
dont think I could lay down all that bullshit sober, do you?" The ad carried a disclaimer in small print at the
bottom of the page, reading "ad parodynot to be taken seriously." The magazine's table of contents also listed
the ad as "Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody."
Falwell sued Larry Flynt, Hustler magazine, and Flynt's distribution company in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Before trial, the court granted Flynt's motion for summary judgment on the invasion of privacy claim, and the
remaining two charges proceeded to trial. A jury found in favor of Flynt on the libel claim, but found in favor of
Falwell on the intentional infliction of emotional distress charge, and awarded Falwell $150,000 in damages.
Flynt appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Flynt's argument that the actualmalice standard of New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254
(http://supreme.justia.com/us/376/254/case.html) (1964) applied in cases of intentional infliction of emotional
distress where the plaintiff was a public figure, as Falwell concededly was. The New York Times standard
focused too heavily on the truth of the statement at issue; for the Fourth Circuit, it was enough that Virginia law
required the defendant to act intentionally. After the Fourth Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc, the U.S.
Supreme Court granted Flynt's request to hear the case.

Majority opinion
"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas
wikipedia.org//Hustler_Magazine_

2/4

8/20/2009

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell - Wikipedi

and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of
individual liberty and thus a good unto itself but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality
of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas
remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions." The First Amendment envisions that the sort of robust
political debate that takes place in a democracy will occasionally yield speech critical of public figures who are
"intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in
areas of concern to society at large". In New York Times, the Court held that the First Amendment gives
speakers immunity from sanction with respect to their speech concerning public figures unless their speech is
both false and made with the knowledge of its falsehood or with reckless disregard for the truth of the statement.
Although false statements lack inherent value, the "breathing space" that freedom of expression requires in order
to flourish must tolerate occasional false statements, lest there be an intolerable chilling effect on speech that does
have constitutional value.
To be sure, in other areas of the law, the specific intent to inflict emotional harm enjoys no protection. But with
respect to speech concerning public figures, penalizing the intent to inflict emotional harm, without also requiring
that the speech that inflicts that harm to be false, would subject political cartoonists and other satirists to large
damage awards. "The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploitation of unfortunate
physical traits or politically embarrassing events an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the
subject of the portrayal". This was certainly true of the cartoons of Thomas Nast, who skewered Boss Tweed in
the pages of Harper's Weekly. From a historical perspective, political discourse would have been considerably
poorer without such cartoons.
Even if Nast's cartoons were not particularly offensive, Falwell argued that the Hustler parody advertisement in
this case was so "outrageous" as to take it outside the scope of First Amendment protection. But "outrageous" is
an inherently subjective term, susceptible to the personal taste of the jury empaneled to decide a case. Such a
standard "runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question
may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience". So long as the speech at issue is not "obscene" and
thus not subject to First Amendment protection, it should be subject to the actual-malice standard when it
concerns public figures.
Clearly, Falwell was a public figure for purposes of First Amendment law. Because the district court found in
favor of Flynt on the libel charge, there was no dispute as to whether the parody could be understood as
describing actual facts about Falwell or events in which he participated. Accordingly, because the parody did not
make false statements that were implied to be true, it could not be the subject of damages under the New York
Times actual-malice standard. The Court thus reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit.

Dramatization
The People vs. Larry Flynt, a critically acclaimed 1996 film directed by Milo Forman and starring
Woody Harrelson as Flynt and Edward Norton as Flynt's lawyer, features the case prominently.

See also
Westmoreland v. CBS
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) "actual malice" standard for press reporting
wikipedia.org//Hustler_Magazine_

3/4

8/20/2009
New

Hustler
v. Falwell
Wikipedi
York Times Co. v. Sullivan,
376Magazine
U.S. 254
(1964)-
"actual malice" standard for press reporting
about public figure to be libel.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) opinion is not libel; "actual malice" not necessary
for defamation of private person if negligence is present.
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) existing law sufficient to protect free speech
without recognizing opinion privilege against libel claims.
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 485

Notes
1. ^ Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)

Further reading
Brewer, Edward C. (2003). "Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell". in Parker, Richard A. (ed.). Free
Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions. Tuscaloosa,
AL: University of Alabama Press. pp. 264280. ISBN 081731301X.
Stanley Fish, "Jerry Falwell's Mother", in his essay collection There's No Such Thing as Free Speech,
and It's a Good Thing, Too, Oxford University Press, 1994.

External links
Text of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) is available from: Enfacto
(http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./485/46/) LII (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?
485+46)
The OYEZ Project (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1278)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell"
Categories: 1988 in law | United States defamation case law | United States Supreme Court cases | United
States free speech case law | United States First Amendment case law | Pornography law
This page was last modified on 14 August 2009 at 03:49.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may
apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

wikipedia.org//Hustler_Magazine_

4/4