Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell 485 U.S. 46 (1988) By: Hunter Tuck PLS 211 December 8, 2015

Original Jurisdiction United States District Court for Western District of Virginia –Plaintiff- Jerry Falwell (nationally known minister and commentator on politics and public affairs) –Defendant- “Hustler Magazine, Larry Flynt, and Flynt Distributing Co.” Nov issue of Hustler Magazine- parody advertisement for Campari Liqueur inside front cover.

District Court Details Court decided against plaintiff upon the invasion of privacy and libel claims. Defendant used the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case back in 1964 as their argument saying that Falwell could not receive emotional distress unless actual malice was shown. District Court decided against defendant and award Jerry Falwell “$100,000 compensatory damages, as well as $50,000 each in punitive damages from petitioners…”

4 th Circuit Appeals Court Decision

Appealed to Supreme Court Question: “whether or not a public figure may recover damages for “emotional harm” by publications that may be “offensive to him, and doubtless gross and repugnant in the eyes of most.” Reason for hearing: deals with the First Amendment.

Supreme Court Case Final Decision: February 24, 1988 –Plaintiff- Hustler Magazine and associates –Defendant- Jerry Falwell Final Vote: 8-0 (Unanimous) –Justice Kennedy did not participate in the vote. –Justice Rehnquist, now chief justice, wrote and delivered the majority decision to the court.

Majority Decision Details Emotional Distress and Libel: –Falwell used outrageousness as his argument and believed actual malice did not have to be shown. –Supreme Court said: “allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the juror’s taste and views…” Final say: Ad parody could not “reasonably be understood as actual facts” and “relegated to his claim to damages…by “outrageous” conduct.”

Dissenting and Concurrent Opinions Decision was unanimous so there weren’t any dissenting opinions. However, Justice White gave a concurrent opinion, in which there wasn’t much information and really just said that he overall agreed with the final judgement during the court session.

Political Impact (Landmark Case) “Court is not interested in making it easier for public figures to collect damages when subject to criticism and satire” “Sullivan rule was reinsured as the basis for publications defending themselves in libel actions”

Agree? Initial judgement changed after hearing the majority decision. Invasion of Privacy- then everyone would be suing every time a parody is made. Libel- The ad was located in a fictitious reference section. Emotional Distress- “outrageousness” Supreme Court had a reasonable argument against that claim and went by the Sullivan rule, which is the basis for these libel cases.

Bibliography Brannen, Daniel E., and Richard Clay Hanes. Supreme Court Drama: Cases That Changed America. Detroit: U.X.L, Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech. "Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell." Oyez (accessed December 3, 2015).Top of Form Bottom of Form Finkelman, Paul, and Melvin I. Urofsky. Landmark Decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, Top of Form Finkelman, Paul, and Melvin I. Urofsky. Landmark Decisions of the United States Supreme Court. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, Fisher, Louis. American Constitutional Law. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, "Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell." LII / Legal Information Institute. Accessed December 3, ext/485/46. "Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell 485 U.S. 46 (1988)." Justia US Supreme Court Accessed December 3, /485/46/case.html. Jost, Kenneth. The Supreme Court A to Z. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, Renstrom, Peter G. Constitutional Law and Young Adults. 2nd ed. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, ss.com/2013/03/falwell-campari-small.jpeg agree jpg as/47011/0x0/77.jpg content/uploads/2014/01/COOP_Logo.png covers/absenceofmalice.jpg tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSr c1YRXGAiwArG0alM40baDfkjmC4OMilO_ Dc0J4J4yxTkP2pH