The United States of America November 1983
Hustler Magazine, a pornographic magazine known also for crude humor and political satire,
publishes a parody ad that targets a popular Christian fundamentalist televangelist
and conservative political commentator named Jerry Falwell. Uh yeah, here is the ad,
which I censored a bit. It was right inside the front cover of the issue. It basically
mimicked the advertising campaigns of Campari, an Italian alcoholic beverage
that featured interviews with random celebrities that always started with a question about their
“first time.” Well in this parody ad, Jerry Falwell shares details about him...um...
having sexual relations with his mother. Now, the ad did carry a small disclaimer
at the bottom of the page that said “ad parody – not to be taken seriously",
and the magazine's table of contents also listed the ad as: "Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody."
Regardless, after Falwell found out about it, he sued Larry Flynt, the publisher of the magazine,
as well as Flynt’s distribution company, for libel, invasion of privacy, and
“intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Libel is a written form of defamation. Oh you
don’t know what defamation is? Defamation means ruining someone’s good reputation. Basically,
Falwell seemed worried that people might think this parody ad WAS TRUE. Suing in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, he asked for
$45 million in damages, which is around $100 million today when adjusted for inflation.
Well the jury ruled against Falwell on the libel claim, saying the ad clearly wasn’t referring
to something that REALLY happened. Still, the jury ruled in favor of Falwell on the
claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, awarding him $150,000 in damages.
Well Flynt didn’t like this so much, so he appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and it agreed with the lower Court. Now,
Flynt and his lawyers had brought up the landmark Supreme Court ruling in the case New York Times v.
Sullivan. In that case, the Court ruled that if a public figure sues somebody for defamation,
they have to prove there was “actual malice” involved. In other words,
they have to prove the defendant either knew they were spreading lies about the public figure OR
were recklessly disregarding whether or not they were spreading lies. Basically,
it made it hard for public figures to win defamation lawsuits, ok? So anyway, Flynt
was frustrated the federal courts seemed to be misrepresenting the Sullivan ruling by saying that
Falwell did deserve defamation compensation due to “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
Couldn’t ANY public figure say that about ANY kind of parody or criticism of them? Now,
Falwell and his lawyers argued that HIS FAMILY had been defamed, and they were not public figures.
Regardless, Flynt appealed again, this time to the Supreme Court, and they agreed to hear
oral arguments on December 2, 1987. The big question in the case was: “Does the First
Amendment's freedom of speech protection extend to the making of really offensive statements
about public figures that could result in them suffering from emotional distress?”
The court said “yes,” announcing their decision on February 24, 1988. It was unanimous. They ruled in
favor of Hustler. Well that’s weird to put it that way. Um, let’s put it this way. They ruled
in favor of Larry Flynt and Hustler Magazine, saying the parody ad was protected speech under
the First Amendment. They said public figures like Jerry Falwell can’t get money for suing for
suffering from emotional distress without showing that the offending publication
actually had a false statement of fact that was made with “actual malice.” So yep, they leaned on
New York Times v. Sullivan for this case. Oh, and the Court basically added that look...protecting
free speech was more important than protecting public figures from offensive speech.
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell was a landmark Supreme Court case that made it easier to make
fun of celebrities. It represented two wildly different perspectives. On one end was Flynt,
representing the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s and pushing of boundaries with free speech,
and on the other end was Falwell, representing a culturally conversative and religious backlash to
that. Their feud was later dramatized by the film The People vs. Larry Flynt, but interestingly,
right after this case Larry and Jerry put aside their differences and regularly met
up to talk philosophy, later becoming good friends. In fact, they appeared
on TV together on several occasions. Falwell died in 2007 and Flynt died earlier this year.
Since the Hustler Magazine decision, hundreds of courts have cited the case, and today it remains
one of the most important First Amendment Supreme Court cases in American history.
I’ll see you for the next Supreme Court case, jury!
This video is sponsored in part by Apex News. It’s a news aggregator app I found
out about that’s great! Apex News sorts through the internet to serve up breaking, popular, and
relevant stories. A one stop shop, baby! More than just headlines, Apex News makes it easy
to get that quick fix of content that inspires or challenges you. Also, by promoting what’s popular,
Apex News helps you stay in the loop both globally and locally. Oh there’s lots of local stuff.
Apex News gives you a direct line to the pulse of your community in the palm of your hand. You
all know me, I’m always constantly searching as many different news outlets as possible to find
out the truth, and Apex News is another fantastic way for me to do that. Try it
out for yourself FOR FREE by visiting the link in the description or pinned comment.
Do you agree with the Supreme Court in this case? Also, which case should I cover next
for this series? Let me know in the comments. Multiple folks suggested this one, so thanks for
the suggestion y’all. Be sure to check out my entire Supreme Court Briefs playlist, which is
right about here. The more you watch, the more I make them. So uh yeah...thanks for watching!