Hustler Vs. Larry F
Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Fawell, 485 U.S. 46, U.S. Supreme Court (1988)
CAUSE OF ACTION: Respondent brought suit against petitioner for libel, slander, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
FACTS: The parties are a nationally circulated magazine and a nationally known minister and commentator of public affairs. In a liquor advertisement for a nationally circulated magazine, a parody portraying the minister experiencing his “first time” with his mother in an outhouse while being intoxicated. The magazine placed disclaimers in the table of contents and on the ad page a statement that the parody was not to be taken seriously. The minster claimed that the parody brought emotional distress, it was an invasion of privacy and he was entitled to damages for libel.
ISSUE: Whether the parody could be understood as describing actual facts or events about the minister. Whether there was an invasion of privacy. Whether there was an intentional infliction of emotional distress.
HOLDING: The U.S. Supreme Court found that the respondent was a public figure, and as a public figure, the respondent has to prove that the parody was prepared in malice with the intent of disparaging his character. The court found that the jurys award and appeals court upholding of damages was inconsistent with the courts longstanding refusal to allow for damages just because a particular form of speech had a negative effect on the audience. The Court of Appeals ruling for damages to the respondent was subsequently overturned.
LAW: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a public figure can hold a speaker liable for damage to reputation and emotional distress; however, a public figure may not recover for damages without showing that there was intentional infliction of emotional distress additionally there must be proof that the publication