Lexplug logoLexplug

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

Supreme Court of United States
485 U.S. 46 (1988)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) by reason of a caricature, parody, or satire without a showing that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with 'actual malice.'


Facts:

  • Jerry Falwell was a nationally known minister and public figure.
  • Hustler Magazine, Inc. is a magazine of nationwide circulation.
  • The November 1983 issue of Hustler featured a parody of a Campari Liqueur advertisement titled 'Jerry Falwell talks about his first time.'
  • The ad parody portrayed Falwell in a fabricated interview stating that his 'first time' was a drunken, incestuous encounter with his mother in an outhouse.
  • In small print at the bottom of the page, the ad included the disclaimer, 'ad parody — not to be taken seriously.'
  • The magazine’s table of contents also listed the ad as 'Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody.'

Procedural Posture:

  • Jerry Falwell filed a diversity action against Hustler Magazine, Inc. and Larry C. Flynt in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, alleging libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
  • The District Court granted a directed verdict for Hustler on the invasion of privacy claim.
  • A jury found in favor of Hustler on the libel claim, specifically finding that the ad parody could not 'reasonably be understood as describing actual facts' about Falwell.
  • The same jury found in favor of Falwell on the IIED claim and awarded him compensatory and punitive damages.
  • Hustler (petitioner/appellant) appealed the IIED verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of Falwell (respondent/appellee), holding that the state's interest in preventing emotional distress was sufficient to support the verdict.
  • The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the case.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the First Amendment's protection of free speech prohibit a public figure from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, caused by a caricature or parody, without showing that the publication contains a false statement of fact made with 'actual malice'?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist

Yes. The First Amendment prohibits a public figure from recovering damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing the publication contains a false statement of fact made with actual malice. Robust political debate and criticism of public figures, including satire and caricature, are central to the First Amendment. An 'outrageousness' standard for emotional distress claims is inherently subjective and would allow juries to impose liability based on their personal tastes or dislike of a particular expression, thus chilling protected speech. To provide the necessary 'breathing space' for free expression, the Court extended the 'actual malice' standard from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to IIED claims brought by public figures. Because the jury found the Hustler parody could not reasonably be understood as stating actual facts, Falwell's claim for emotional distress cannot succeed.


Concurring - Justice White

Yes. The judgment penalizing the publication of the parody cannot be squared with the First Amendment. The rule from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan has little relevance here because the jury specifically found that the ad contained no assertion of fact. Since the parody was found not to be factual, it is protected speech, and the judgment against Hustler must be reversed on that basis alone.



Analysis:

This landmark decision significantly expands First Amendment protections for speech directed at public figures, particularly in the realm of satire and parody. By extending the 'actual malice' standard from defamation law to the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Court prevented public figures from using IIED claims as an alternative way to sue for offensive speech that does not contain factual falsehoods. The ruling solidifies protection for even the most 'outrageous' or offensive criticism of public figures, so long as it cannot be reasonably interpreted as a statement of fact. This precedent has had a profound impact, safeguarding the work of political cartoonists, satirists, and critics from lawsuits based on emotional harm.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"