1. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell 1987-1988 (No. 86-1278)
By: Amber Shelton

2. Parties Involved
Plaintiff: Jerry Falwell
Defendant: Hustler Magazine

3. Background Hustler Magazine-known throughout the nation
Jerry Falwell was known nationwide and also had been active as a critic on the government and public affairs
advertisement “parody” against Jerry Falwell
entitled ‘Jerry Falwell talks about his first time’
portrayed respondent as having engaged in a drunken incestuous meeting with his mother in an outhouse

4. Background cont.
included in the advertisement that he gets drunk every time before preaching
“first time” drinking Campari Liqueur, but it was also on the sexual subject of the Respondent’s “first time,” too
Falwell’s picture and name and was modeled after the Campari Liqueur advertisements that involved interviews with celebrities
Made him seem like a hypocrite
Became First Amendment case

5. Background Cont.
at the very bottom of the advertisement, it says, “ad parody – not to be taken seriously.”
Also, in the table of contents of the Magazine, it states the ad as “Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody.”
Falwell decided to have Norman Roy Grutman, from New York, as his attorney

6. Three Points
Grutman used three points towards recovery: “(1) the defendants used Falwell’s name and likeness for commercial purposes without consent; (2) the defendants defamed Falwell by falsely accusing him of committing incest with his mother; and (3) the defendants intentionally ‘inflicted emotional distress’ …through the outrageous publication.”
deliberately attacked Falwell and was meant to impose emotional damage
But, ad could not have realistically been taken as stating definite facts about Falwell

7. District Court
The jury was on Hustler Magazine’s side on the claim of defamation
Jury was on Falwell’s side on the emotional distress claim
Also said Hustler intended to cause Falwell emotional harm and therefore said he should be granted $100,000 in compensatory and $100,000 in punitive reparations

8. Supreme Court
Jury found that Hustler Magazine acted intentionally and recklessly
also stated that the magazine lawfully protected itself by inserting that it was a parody at the bottom of the advertisement
Falwell lost the libel case because they disproved actual malice with the tiny printed statement
On Hustler Magazine’s side, with eight votes toward Hustler Magazine, and zero votes against the magazine

9. Supreme Court Cont.
Did not believe that the advertisement conveyed facts that would harm Falwell’s reputation as being a religious leader
reverse the award of damages that the jury gave Falwell
public figures may never recuperate for the tort of emotional distress because of publications that has untruthful statements that were made with “actual malice.”

10. Conclusion
Now, cases and lawsuits are not based on defending the character of a person
shielding an individual’s thoughts or work when it comes to the rights of parody within the First Amendment, instead
Falwell’s attorney should have claimed a “fighting words” recovery theory to the First Amendment
Because Hustler tried to blacken not only his character, but his mother’s, also

11. Pictures Cited
"Founder." About Liberty. Web. 4 Dec <
"My First Freedoms." My First Freedoms. Web. 4 Dec <
"Roy Grutman 1987." The Big Story. Web. 4 Dec <

12. Work Cited
Goldberg, Elana. "Essay 3: Parody and the First Amendment." The First Amendment. Bu.digication.com. (Accessed November 26, 2014.)
"Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell." LII / Legal Information Institute. Law.cornell.edu. (Accessed November 26, 2014.)
"Hustler Magazine v. Falwell | Casebriefs." Casebriefs. Casebriefs.com. (Accessed November 26, 2014.)
"HUSTLER MAGAZINE v. FALWELL." Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Oyez.org. (Accessed November 26, 2014.)
Linder, Douglas. "Falwell v Flynt Trial (1984)." Falwell v Flynt Trial (1984). Law2.umkc.edu. (Accessed November 26, 2014.)
Taylor, Stuart. "HUSTLER-FALWELL CASE WILL BE HEARD." The New York Times. March 30, Nytimes.com. (Accessed November 26, 2014.)