Case Brief Of Hustler Vs Falwell

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell,485 U.S. 46 (1988) came about as a result of Hustler Magazine and its publisher Larry Flynt publishing a crude ad parody of Baptist minister and televangelist Jerry Falwell. The ad itself was modeled after Campari Liquer ads in which various celebrities talk about their “first times” sampling Campari, clearly playing off the sexual double entendre regarding “first times.” Hustler's November 1983 parody consisted of an alleged interview with Falwell in which he stated that his “first time” was a drunken, incestuous encounter with his mother in an outhouse. Shortly after the parody was printed in Hustler, Falwell sued the magazine and Flynt for intentional infliction of emotional distress. To win a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended to cause mental distress or acted with reckless disregard of the probability that such distress would occur.

The Supreme Court concluded that the parody contained no statement of fact and thusly established that if that element was not present, there could be no recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress for public figures. The court ruled that the ad was protected under the First Amendment and was an obvious satire, which does not meet the standard of actual malice. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell established that a public figure may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the publication contains a false statement of fact made with actual