| Hustler Magazine v. Falwell | |
|---|---|
 | |
| 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 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 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). |
| Subsequent | None |
| Holding | |
| Parodies of public figures which could not reasonably be taken as true are protected against civil liability by the First Amendment, even if intended to cause emotional distress. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia |
| Concurrence | White |
| Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that parodies of public figures, even those intending to cause emotional distress, are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
In the case, Hustler magazine ran a full-page parody ad against televangelist and political commentator Jerry Falwell Sr., depicting him as an incestuous drunk who had sex with his mother in an outhouse. The ad was marked as a parody that was "not to be taken seriously". In response, Falwell sued Hustler and the magazine's publisher Larry Flynt for intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, and invasion of privacy, but Flynt defended the ad's publication as protected by the First Amendment.
In an 8–0 decision, the Court held that the emotional distress inflicted on Falwell by the ad was not a sufficient reason to deny the First Amendment protection to speech that is critical of public officials and public figures.[1]
Constitutional limits to defamation liability cannot be circumvented for claims arising from speech by asserting an alternative theory of tort liability such as intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- ^ Taylor, Stuart Jr. (February 25, 1988). "COURT, 8-0, EXTENDS RIGHT TO CRITICIZE THOSE IN PUBLIC EYE". The New York Times. p. 1. Retrieved May 15, 2023.