What rules of law applied in Hustler Magazine v Falwell?

Answer 1

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 US 46 (1988)

Hustler v. Falwell dealt with two important issues: First Amendment protection, and the application of civil statutes for libel. The allegation of libel was tied directly to the Court's decision on the First Amendment constitutional question: "Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection extend to the making of patently offensive statements about public figures, resulting perhaps in their suffering emotional distress?"

The civil portion of the case alleged invasion of privacy, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress, resulting from a parody of a Compari liquor ad Hustler published implying Falwell lost his virginity to his mother in a drunken encounter in the family outhouse.

Falwell believed the ad was so "outrageous" and offensive, it shouldn't qualify for First Amendment protection. Falwell was a public figure, however, and subject to fair comment in the form of parody. In order to prove libel by the higher standard outlined in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), Falwell claimed the ad was created with "actual malice." In legal terms, "actual malice" refers to publishing statements known to be false, or acting in reckless disregard for the truth. "Actual malice" is not synonymous with "malicious intent," a desire to do harm.

The Supreme Court held that the "actual malice" test was not applicable because the US District Court jury had found Hustler, and its publisher Larry Flynt, not guilty of libel. The parody was unbelievable, and was never implied to portray truth. Further, the Court held that "outrageousness" is a subjective concept that can't reasonably used as a legal theory for filing civil suit, and that intentional infliction of emotional distress, by itself, was not sufficient grounds for a monetary award. In light of the jury finding, there was no basis for awarding Falwell damage for "emotional distress."

The Court held that the interest in protecting free speech surpassed the state's interest in protecting public figures.

Further, the Court held the jury in US District Court made an error in awarding Falwell damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress after finding Flynt and Hustler not guilty of libel. The Supreme Court held that a public figure can't collect monetary damages on the basis intentional infliction of emotional distress alone. The concept of "actual malice," established in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964), is inapplicable to opinion or parody.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 2

In the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected a satirical advertisement published in Hustler magazine, which was considered offensive by Reverend Jerry Falwell. The court held that public figures could not recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the publication contained a false statement made with actual malice. This case reaffirmed the importance of protecting freedom of speech and the press, even when the speech is offensive or distasteful.