HUSTLER MAGAZINE v. FALWELL

HUSTLER MAGAZINE v. FALWELL

A lead story in the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement, modeled after an actual ad campaign, claiming that Falwell, a FUNDAMENTALIST MINISTER AND POLITICAL LEADER, had a drunken incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued to recover damages for libel, INVASION OF PRIVACY, and INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. Falwell won a jury verdict on the emotional distress claim and was awarded a total of $150,000 in damages. Hustler Magazine appealed.

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?

UNANIMITY DECISION (8 votes for Hustler Magazine) (J. Kennedy took no part in the decision)

PUBLIC FIGURES, such as Jerry Falwell, MAY NOT RECOVER FOR THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS WITHOUT SHOWING THAT THE OFFENDING PUBLICATION CONTAINED A FALSE STATEMENT OF FACT WHICH WAS MADE WITH "ACTUAL MALICE." The Court added that THE INTEREST OF PROTECTING FREE SPEECH, UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, SURPASSED THE STATE'S INTEREST IN PROTECTING PUBLIC FIGURES FROM PATENTLY OFFENSIVE SPEECH.