Flynt V Falwell Summary
Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt v. Jerry Falwell: 108 S. Ct. 876 Supreme Court of the United States
CAUSE OF ACTION: Recover damages for invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
FACTS: The inside front cover of the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement for Campari Liqueur that contained the name and picture of respondent and was entitled "Jerry Falwell talks about his first time." This parody was modeled after actual Campari ads that included interviews with various celebrities about their "first times” time they sampled Campari however the ads clearly played on the sexual double entendre of the general subject of "first times."
Hustler chose Jerry …show more content…
v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), ruled that a public figure may hold a speaker liable for the damage to reputation caused by publication of a defamatory falsehood, but only if the statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." This ad parody did not display actual malice, that is Hustler did not publish false facts in order to intentionally harm this man, also that no reasonable person could believe the facts of the ad to be true. Although the ad may have been distasteful and outrageous, according to the respondent, "Outrageousness" in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression. An "outrageousness" standard thus 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. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 910 (1982) ("Speech does not lose its protected character . . . simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action"). Also, as stated in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726
CAUSE OF ACTION: Recover damages for invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
FACTS: The inside front cover of the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement for Campari Liqueur that contained the name and picture of respondent and was entitled "Jerry Falwell talks about his first time." This parody was modeled after actual Campari ads that included interviews with various celebrities about their "first times” time they sampled Campari however the ads clearly played on the sexual double entendre of the general subject of "first times."
Hustler chose Jerry …show more content…
v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), ruled that a public figure may hold a speaker liable for the damage to reputation caused by publication of a defamatory falsehood, but only if the statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." This ad parody did not display actual malice, that is Hustler did not publish false facts in order to intentionally harm this man, also that no reasonable person could believe the facts of the ad to be true. Although the ad may have been distasteful and outrageous, according to the respondent, "Outrageousness" in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression. An "outrageousness" standard thus 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. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 910 (1982) ("Speech does not lose its protected character . . . simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action"). Also, as stated in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726