Hustler Magazine v. Falwell 1988

Petitioners: Hustler Magazine, Inc., et al.

Respondent: Reverend Jerry Falwell

Petitioners' Claim: That the First Amendment prevented Jerry Falwell from recovering damages for emotional distress caused by a fake advertisement about him in Hustler Magazine.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioners: Alan L. Issacman

Chief Lawyer for Respondent: Norman Roy Grutman

Justices for the Court: Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting: None (Anthony M. Kennedy did not participate)

Date of Decision: February 24, 1988

Decision: Falwell was not allowed to recover damages for emotional distress.

Significance: For a public figure to recover damages for emotional distress, he must prove that the publisher knew or should have known it was printing something false.

In the public eye

The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press in the United States. It allows people to publish newspapers, magazines, and books that explore important issues for the public. America's founders believed that the ability to share ideas is one of the most important parts of freedom. Publishers often write about public figures—people such as politicians and celebrities who are well known to the public. Sometimes publishers harm a public figure's reputation by writing things that are not true. This is called libel. When libel happens, the public figure can sue the publisher to recover money for his damages. In New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), however, the U.S. Supreme Court said a public figure can recover for libel only if he proves that the publisher knew he was printing a false statement. Otherwise, publishers would be afraid to print stories they thought were true because the stories might contain an error. That would violate the freedom of the press. In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, the Court had to decide whether a public figure can recover damages when he is injured by a parody. A parody is a funny article, cartoon, or other item that is not meant to be true. It simply explores a public topic with humor.

Funny pages

Reverend Jerry Falwell is a Baptist minister in Virginia with national television and radio programs. In addition to being a religious leader, Falwell is a political activist who works to support Christian issues. One of those issues is fighting against pornography—the publication of photographs about sex. Falwell's activities make him a public figure recognized across the nation. Larry C. Flynt is the publisher of Hustler Magazine. Hustler contains sexually graphic photographs. It also contains articles on issues of national concern. Hustler's pictures and articles often offend the Christian values preached by Reverend Falwell. Around November 1983, a liquor company called Campari was printing advertisements with celebrities describing the first time they drank Campari. That month, Hustler printed a fake advertisement called "Jerry Falwell talks about his first time." The ad contained a fake interview with Falwell and claimed that Falwell only preaches when he is drunk. The bottom of the ad said it was an "ad parody - not to be taken seriously."

No laughing matter

The parody did not amuse Jerry Falwell. He sued Hustler and Larry Flynt in federal district court for invasion of privacy, libel, and emotional distress. The court threw out the claim for invasion of privacy but allowed the jury to decide the claims for libel and emotional distress. A person causes emotional distress when he purposely does something outrageous that is indecent or immoral. The jury decided in favor of Hustler and Flynt on the claim for libel. The jury thought the ad parody was obviously fake. That meant it could not hurt Falwell's reputation. On the claim for emotional distress, however, the jury found in Falwell's favor and awarded him $150,000. Hustler and Flynt appealed. They argued that under New York Times v. Sullivan, they could not be punished unless they purposefully lied about Falwell. Because the ad parody was fake, Hustler and Flynt said the freedom of the press protected their right to print it. The United States Court of Appeals disagreed and ruled in favor of Falwell, so Hustler and Flynt took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Parodies protected

With a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed and ruled in favor of Hustler and Flynt. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said the heart of the First Amendment is the "importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern." Such matters often involve public figures. Free talk about public issues and figures is "essential to the common quest for truth." Rehnquist described a little history of political cartoons. Political cartoons make fun of politicians and other public figures but are not always true. Rehnquist said such cartoons have helped the public discuss important presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Without political cartoons, discussion of political issues would suffer. That would violate the freedom of the press. Under the First Amendment, then, publishers are allowed to print parodies about public figures. A public figure can sue for damages only when a publisher harms his reputation with lies. Because Hustler's ad parody was not meant to be taken seriously, it was not a lie and had not injured Falwell's

JOHN PETER ZENGER

B efore the United States of America was born, the colony of New York had a law against seditious libel. The law made it a crime to criticize the government, even if the criticism was true. In the 1730s, John Peter Zenger ran a newspaper called the New-York Weekly Journal. Zenger's newspaper printed many articles that criticized New York and its governor, William Cosby. In 1734, Cosby had Zenger arrested and thrown in jail for seditious libel. Zenger stayed in jail for ten months until his trial on August 4, 1735. Zenger's lawyer was a popular Philadelphia attorney and Pennsylvania politician named Andrew Hamilton. At trial, Hamilton admitted that Zenger published articles that criticized Governor Cosby. He said, however, that Zenger was innocent because the criticism was true. The judge ruled that whether the articles were true did not matter under the crime of seditious libel. In closing arguments, Hamilton still asked the jury not to convict Zenger for publishing the truth. The jury came back with a verdict of not guilty. It was a victory for free speech and free press, which the United States protected fifty-seven years later in the First Amendment.

reputation. Hustler and Flynt did not have to pay Falwell for his emotional distress.

Suggestions for further reading

Dictionary of American History. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1976.

Evans, J. Edward. Freedom of the Press. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Company, 1990.

Farish, Leah. The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, and the Press. Hillside, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 1998.

Goldman, David J. The Freedom of the Press in America. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Company, 1967.

Klinker, Philip A. The First Amendment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Silver Burdett Press, 1991.

Kross, Jessica, ed. American Eras, 1600-1754: The Colonial Era. Detroit: Gale Research, 1998.

Morris, Richard Brandon, ed. Encyclopedia of American History: Bicentennial Edition. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1976.

Pascoe, Elaine. Freedom of Expression: The Right to Speak Out in America. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook Press, 1992.

Schwartz, Bernard. Freedom of the Press. New York: Facts on File, 1992.

Steins, Richard. Censorship: How Does It Conflict with Freedom? New York: Twenty-First Century Books, 1995.

Zeinert, Karen. Free Speech: From Newspapers to Music Lyrics. Hillside, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 1995.

Zerman, Melvyn B. Taking on the Press: Constitutional Rights in Conflict. New York: Crowell, 1986.