Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Hustler Magazine v. Falwell | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||||||
| Argued December 2, 1987 Decided February 24, 1988 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||||||
| 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, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy |
|||||||||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||||||||
| Majority by: Rehnquist Joined by: Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia Concurrence by: 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), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court. The decision strengthened free speech rights in relation to parodies of public figures by extending the "actual malice" test of New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
The case was argued on December 2, 1987 and the Court handed down its decision on February 24, 1988 by a vote of 8 to 0. William Rehnquist wrote for the Court, Byron White concurred. Anthony Kennedy had taken his seat on the bench a mere six days before the decision was handed down, and so did not take part in the case.
Contents |
[edit] Background of the case
Larry Flynt made a fortune and contributed to the rise of the sexual revolution in America through publication of Hustler magazine. While Hustler has always been known for its explicit, even gynecological pictures of nude women and its crude humor, the prominent fundamentalist Protestant minister Jerry Falwell found nothing funny about a 1983 parody featuring him. In a parody of a magazine advertisement for a popular alcoholic drink, Hustler described a drunk Falwell having an incestuous encounter with his mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued Flynt, alleging libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The satire in question was a fake advertisement, parodying a real advertising campaign for Campari, an Italian apéritif. 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 star’s first sexual experience, then revealing that the discussion was about their first time trying 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 don’t 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 parody -- not to be taken seriously." The magazine's table of contents also listed the ad as "Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody."
A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia found the parody did not amount to libel. This was in part because New York Times v. Sullivan set a very high standard -- "actual malice" -- for libel against "public figures," such as politicians and celebrities. Moreover, libel pertains to a false statement of fact, while the jury found that the ad "was not reasonably believable." The jury was not convinced that a typical person reading the satire would have thought that Jerry Falwell really did make the statements in question or have sex with his mother in an outhouse. Nonetheless, the jury returned $150,000 in damages for Falwell on the basis that Flynt had intentionally inflicted "emotional distress" on Falwell. Flynt decided to appeal.
Flynt's lawyer argued that it was just too easy to prove that a satirist intended to emotionally distress his target. If the Supreme Court accepted that standard, then it would make it very easy for public figures to win damages from satirists. This would have a chilling effect on satire, as cartoonists and comedians would have to worry that they didn't hurt anyone's feelings too badly.
[edit] The Court's decision
The Court ruled that a public figure could not recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a satire, because under the First Amendment, an obvious satire or parody of a public figure remains protected speech, even if it causes emotional distress to that person. A public figure couldn't recover damages without showing not only that the publication contained a "false statement of fact" (that is, a statement that a reasonable reader would believe to be true), but also that the satirist acted with "actual malice" (that is, "with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true"). The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower court.
The court stated that satire (even outrageous satire) has a long and important history in America and that the Founding Fathers had specifically intended for the First Amendment to protect these types of parodies. The court cited many examples of famous, if bitingly satirical, political cartoons, "from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day." The Court paid particular attention to the cartoons of Thomas Nast, whose cartoons ridiculed the corruption of Tammany Hall and helped bring about the downfall of Boss Tweed. The court noted that Nast's cartoons were successful because of their emotional impact, which arose out of going "beyond the bounds of good taste and conventional manners."
[edit] Critical response
 |
Please help improve this article by expanding this section. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. Please remove this message once the section has been expanded. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
Stanley Fish harshly criticized the decision in his essay "Jerry Falwell's Mother", which is contained in his essay collection There's No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It's a Good Thing, Too (Oxford University Press, 1994); see also the essay with the same title as the book. Fish argues that if one has -- even implicitly -- a potential answer to the question "what is free speech good for?" -- which for most people would probably be along the lines of "in the free and open clash of viewpoints the truth can better become known" rather than "it is intrinsically good for people to produce syntactically correct language utterances, regardless of their semantic content" -- then there is no hypocrisy or contradiction in constraining speech in terms of deeper foundational values.
[edit] Dramatization
- The People vs. Larry Flynt, directed by Miloš Forman and starring Woody Harrelson as Flynt and Edward Norton as Flynt's lawyer, features the case prominently.
[edit] Related cases
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 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 isn't 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.
