Case Of Hustler Magazine Inc. V Falwell

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell Oral Argument Summary

The oral argument in Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell consists of Isaacman’s arguments along with the justices’ questioning of both attorneys. Isaacman argued that parody, specifically the Campari Ad which contained a fake interview about Jerry Falwell’s incestuous relationship with his mother, should be protected by the First Amendment. On the other side of the argument, Grutman who represented Jerry Falwell argued that the speech should be held liable because it caused emotional distress.

In the beginning of the oral argument, Isaacman elaborated his interpretation of the First Amendment as an instrument that protects most types of speech except obscenity and fighting words and suggested

v. Sullivan, Isaacman highlighted Falwell’s status as a public figure along with the importance of political nature of the case using the relationship between Hustler Magazine and Jerry Falwell. Known as a magazine with sex, politics, and religion as its focus, Hustler had maintained a hostile relationship with Falwell. In this case, Falwell’s continuous attacks and criticism towards the magazine along with his popularity put him in an important position in the political disagreement while maintaining his status as public

To support this argument, he implied that the fact that Flynt republished the ad multiple times proved the intent of Flynt.

In contrast with Isaacman who referred to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to support his argument, Grutman suggested that the ruling was irrelevant with Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell. Although Falwell could win under the ruling when the issue considered was libel involving factual statements, emotional harm based on intent was the main issue considered by Falwell.

To withhold the tort of emotional distress that was ruled as invalid in a recent decision, Grutman defended it by saying that the decision was made by an inferior court, he did not view it as a good law, and there were other cases which supported the tort. He also supported this tort as using some justice opinions.

Responding to the public figure argument, Grutman noted that being a public figure should not take away someone’s rights as a human being. If libel could not protect public figures from verbal assault, then the Court should support the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress to protect