Search results
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that parodies of public figures, even those intending to cause emotional distress, are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue ...
Unless a higher level of culpability applied when expression involved public figures, political commentators and cartoonists would be subjected to damages awards without evidence that their work falsely defamed public figures.
Unanimous decision for Hustler Magazine, Inc. majority opinion by William H. Rehnquist. First Amendment free speech guarantees protect parodies of public figures from being civilly liable for intentionally inflicted emotional distress.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell: Laugh or Cry, Public Figures Must Learn to Live with Satirical Criticism. , 16 Pepp. L. Rev. 1 (1989) Available at: htp://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol16/iss1/5. This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at Pepperdine Digital Commons.
Feb 10, 2021 · Hustler publisher Larry Flynt became a free-speech activist when he defended himself in a defamation suit from Jerry Falwell, which went all the way to the Supreme Court. Bettmann/Getty. In the...
Aug 6, 2023 · Actual malice not applicable for public figures. The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s judgment. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for a unanimous Court (Justice Anthony M. Kennedy did not participate, having joined the Court after this case was argued).
