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.
Synopsis. In this famous case, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not permit public figures to sue for damages for “emotional distress” when the speech causing the distress is obviously satirical and fictitious.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), if the emotional distress was caused by a caricature, parody ...
Public Officials, Malice. Case Analysis. Case Summary and Outcome. The U.S. Supreme Court held that public figures cannot recover damages for a publication’s infliction of emotional distress without showing that it contains a false statement of fact made with actual malice.
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.
Aug 6, 2023 · In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, the Court ruled that the First Amendment protects publishers’ rights from claims by public figures regarding materials labeled as parodies.
Apr 5, 2017 · The Court held that Falwell was a public figure and as a result of First Amendment protections, more than outrageous conduct had to be shown. The Court decided the correct standard to be applied, in intentional infliction of emotional distress claims by public figures, is actual malice.
