October 3, 2011
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell February 24, 1988
Posted by cswheat under Case Briefs[5] Comments
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell
February 24, 1988
1. Facts of Case
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0485_0046_ZS.html
February 24, 1988
A famous commentator and minister was parodied in hustler magazine having incestuous relations with his mother in an outhouse. He sued for libel and intentional emotional distress. He appealed the ruling and once again the judges upheld the previous courts decision.
2. Legal Issue
The question before us at hand is whether Hustler Magazine was libelous in its parody. The second part that the case asks us to answer is whether there was actual malice in their parody and did it cause emotional stress. Was there parody unconstitutional or was it protected under out first amendment rights?
3. Decision
The decision of the court was that thy found against his libel claim but did uphold his claim of emotional distress. The court also ruled that it did not meet the standard of actual malice set forth by New York Times vs. Sullivan. The courts did however give him money for punitive damages.
4. Analysis
The courts said it was not libelous because it could not be described as stating actual facts or events. They believed that the ad was protected under out first amendment rights.
5. Questions
· What is factors could you use to determine if there was actual malice? When I read this I thought about the type or magazine it was in which is known for provocative writing.
· How does this case differ from Sullivan vs. New York?
· How would you rule on this case would you agree with the judges decision?
5 thoughts on “Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell February 24, 1988”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 3rd, 2011 at 9:54 pm
1. I agree that this magazine is clearly known to contain provocative content so anything in it should not be taken seriously. If this actually happened then Hustler Magazine would not be where you would first find the newsworthy story. Clearly they were using satire to make their readers laugh or provide entertainment. However, this minister will always be associated with what this magazine wrote about him. I can see where this would cause him emotional distress.
2.This is different from NYT Co. v. Sullivan because in this case you can’t describe this as facts or actual events that happened. They can’t prove that this actually happened because this magazine is known for not newsworthy but provocative content. In Sullivan v. NYT Co., they clearly made criticisms about the Montgomery Police that directly reflected on public safety commissioner L.B. Sullivan.
3.I would not rule with the judges decision because I think that it did meet the standard of actual malice. The magazine clearly printed that knowing it was false and wanted to direct it toward the minister but they did it in a way that won’t get them in trouble. I highly disagree with the court because they even admitted that it did cause emotional distress so they should have been guilty of libel as well.
October 6th, 2011 at 2:40 am
This is a very interesting case. I think that if I were to put myself in Falwell’s shoes, I would be very upset at the hustler magazine ad. For one, this would bring about a lot of negative press for Falwell and potentially hurt his career as a commentator and hurt his reputation as a minister. I think this would also bring about a great amount of emotional distress on his family. In think that in this case, Falwell would have to inform a great number of people that the claims made in the ad were not true, or that the ad painted him in a negative light in order to make a satire. Any time a person has to defend their integrity it is a difficult thing. But when they have to defend their integrity for something they did not do then, it is undeserved and unfair to the person. I for one wrote for the Obsidian last semester. One of my stories was about inter-racial relationships. Someone bashed my story calling it narrow minded and effectually racist. The problem in this scenario was that the person who bashed my article used quotes that were not in my story to prove their point. In this case, I felt like I had to defend my integrity and my character for something that I did not even write. I think this case shows when someone is unwillingly thrust into the limelight. Often people, whether public figures or not, do not want to be thrown into intense media scrutiny. Sometimes I wonder is the damage is to people’s reputation and emotional state is worth the protections that the press and media have. While I feel that the press and media is important, too often I see publications publish things that paint people negatively only too sell papers to add to the shock value and not for actual ‘newsworthiness.’
October 7th, 2011 at 12:56 am
· What is factors could you use to determine if there was actual malice?
I agree with the courts decision. I do not believe it was libelous because I also agree there was no actual malice. The ad was published in a famous pornographic magazine, known for its use of the risque.
The ruling is on emotional distress is understandable and agreeable. Especially the person in question being a religious authority. I think anyone would be a little distressed if something were published about them having sex with their mother.
If the ad was not a parody, and not labeled so, there would be a case for actual malice. However, the advertisement was labeled at the bottom “parody – not to be taken seriously.” Any reasonable person would know that the ad was a joke.
October 7th, 2011 at 10:51 am
I would say that because Falwell was a public figure, he had a higher burden of proof than a normal person would. At the same time, although Hustler magazine was at fault, they did state the facts that weren’t defamatory at all. Also, the interview was published, it could also be seen as Falwell’s first time in an outhouse.
I would agree with the judges decision in this case because although most people would read it and think that Falwell had sexual relations with his mother, those same people would be smart enough to realize that the magazine simply had to of made it look that way. If he honestly did have those kinds of relations with his mother, he wouldn’t be coming out with that sort of news to a magazine such as Hustler.
December 14th, 2011 at 11:32 am
Clarification: The Supreme Court did overturn the intentional infliction of emotional distress charge because it ruled the plaintiff had to meet the actual malice standard.