Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

485 U.S. 46 (1988).

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Hustler (D) printed a parody about Falwell (P), a religious televangelist. P was portrayed in a take-off of Campari Liqueur ads and describing his first time as having sex in an outhouse with his mother and being drunk. Small print at the bottom of the page indicated that the ad was a parody and was not to be taken seriously. P sued for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court granted a directed verdict for petitioners on the invasion of privacy claim. The jury then found against respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the ad parody could not 'reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated.' The jury ruled for P on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and stated that he should be awarded $100,000 in compensatory damages, as well as $50,000 each in punitive damages from D. D’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The court rejected D’s argument that the 'actual malice' standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan must be met before P can recover for emotional distress. The Court of Appeals then went on to reject the contention that, because the jury found that the ad parody did not describe actual facts about respondent, the ad was an opinion that is protected by the First Amendment. As the court put it, this was 'irrelevant,' as the issue is 'whether [the ad's] publication was sufficiently outrageous to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.' The Supreme Court granted certiorari.