Alba Reyes
Dr. Lee J. Nelson
ENG 101
November 14, 2006
Research Paper 2nd Draft
Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt v. Jerry Falwell
In The United States, the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press and petition has been debated over the years. As a matter of fact, we keep fighting to express ourselves in our own way without getting social sanctions, or censures. As a solution to this and many other problems in The United States, the Constitution was created with its Amendments. One of the most controversial Supreme Court cases was the case of Hustler Magazine and Larry Flynt vs. Jerry Falwell. Larry Flynt’s lawyer, Alan L. Isaacman, alleged that his client was denied freedom of speech and press, and he based his arguments based on the first Amendment to the Constitution (“Hustler Magazine Inc. vs. Falwell”). Mr. Flynt was accused of intentionally infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and libel to the minister Jerry Falwell who wanted to be compensated (“Excerpts From Court’s… of Speech Protections”). After appealing this case, Mr. Flynt was found innocent of defamation. This event gave rise to many other people to fight for their rights to express and publish their opinions or parodies without the fear of being punished (Jones). The decision on this case influenced other cases involving the freedom of speech, and gave to petitioners the chance to fight for their right to express freely in The United States.
Larry Flynt became a millionaire by contributing to the rise of the sexual revolution in the United States through the publication of Hustler magazine. Hustler Magazine was well known for showing nude women, and for publishing crude humor. Minister Jerry Falwell, also well known as a conservative political activist, wasn’t happy at all when he saw himself in the November 1983 issue of Hustler magazine in a parody with the very popular alcoholic drink Campary next to him. The slogan of the Campary liquor said: “Campary ‘you’ll never forget your first time’” and the title of the Hustler issue was “Jerry Falwell talks about his first time”. Thus, the title was connected to the Campary motto.The satire was just a fake advertisement parodying the alcoholic drink, which had a double entendre. Hustler suggested that Mr. Falwell’s “first time” sexual experience was in an outhouse, drunk and with his mother. The ad also suggested that his preachings were made only when he was drunk, so this made him look like a hypocrite. At the very end of the page there was a note, stating that the ad was just a parody, and that no one was supposed to take the interview seriously. It also was on the table of content as a fiction and personality parody (“Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell”). Mr. Falwell sued Mr.Flynt and his magazine alleging that the publication had malice in its comments, that they were an invasion of his privacy, and that he was a victim of libel and “intentional infliction of emotional distress” (Jones). Libel is denoted as a publication or writing that can damage anyone’s reputation. The jury didn’t find the ad reasonably believable because it wasn’t expressing the actual facts or behavior of the minister. The invasion of privacy charge was thrown out, and the court awarded Mr. Falwell a total of $200.000 for the emotional distress he was experiencing thanks to the ad and its comments (Jones). The award was divided: “$100.000 for actual or compensatory damages and $100.000 more in punitive damages” (“Excerpts…Speech Protection”). In December 1988, Flynt appealed to the U.S Court of appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which sustained the jury’s verdict, and discovered that “while actual malice was required for a libel case, a lesser standard was allowed for emotional distress claims”. The U.S Court of Appeals questioned how the effects on the ad had to produce on the respondent emotional distress and if it was sufficiently scandalous in spite that there was an opinion or not. Therefore, the U.S Supreme Court agreed to go over the case (“Hustler Magazine Inc. V. Falwell”).
As a result, on February 24, 1988, in Washington, the U.S Supreme Court disagreed with the appeals Court decision, and with a ruling of 8-to-0, Falwell was denied the $200.000 that the minor court had granted him. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, wrote the decision based on the First Amendment, which protects the freedom of speech, even if the criticisms of public figures are scandalous and offensive. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy took no part in the case because he had joined the Court just one week after the case was argued. The other Justices joined Justice Rehnquist opinion on this case except for Justice Byron R. White. Justice White who wrote a short concurring opinion. Later on, Justice White along with Chief Justice Burger expressed in their 1985 opinion that the Court should reconsider the rules protecting defamation defendants. In the NY Times issue, Stuart Taylor writes, “Justice Antonin Scalia, who wasn’t on the court then, suggested skepticism about those protections by describing them as ‘fulsome’” (Taylor). He later would join in Chief Justice Rehnquist’s opinion. During the Hustler case decision, one specific case was recalled many times and it was relevant. According to this case in 1964, the New York Timesvs. Sullivan, the Court decided that the speaker couldn’t be responsible of libel or defamation of a public figure unless the statement was made with the knowledge that it was false, if it was made with conscious indifference of the consequences of such statement, even if the statement is true or false. With this decision, public figures were limited in their rights under the laws of defamation and slander because of the importance of the First Amendment. As a result, the jury in the Hustler case found that the parody was not supposed to be taken seriously, and that the publisher wasn’t legally responsible for defamation for making such false statements (“Hustler Magazine Inc. V. Falwell”). No wonder, Jerry Falwell was upset after the Court’s ruling. As he says:
I fully appreciate the deep concerns the Court has shown for the sacredness of the first Amendment. However I respectfully disagree with their ruling. Just as no person may scream ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and find cover under the First Amendment, likewise, no sleaze merchant like Larry Flynt should be able to use the First Amendment as an excuse for maliciously and dishonestly attacking public figures as he has so often done. I believe the Supreme Court has given the green light to Larry Flynt and his ilk to print what they wish about any public figure at any time with no fear of reprisal. (Taylor)
On the other side, Chief Justice Rehnquist reaffirmed his opinion saying that even if the commentary intended to inflict emotional injury on public figures, it was going to be protected by the First Amendment. He also said: “In the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment” (Taylor). This “doesn’t mean that any speech about a public figure is immune of sanction in the form of damages” because there are going to be inevitable falsehoods. A public figure can consider the speaker legally responsible for the damage to reputation caused by a malicious publication or defamation, only if the statement on the publication was made knowing that it was false or by ignoring its negligence (“Excerpts…Speech Protection”). It is important to the Court that the petitioners who want to make a strong libel lawsuit, prepare well to prevent “the granting of a summary judgment” that is most of the times shown by new organizations to get rid of libel cases before costly trials (Jones).
After the Supreme Court decisions regarding cases based on the First Amendment’s clauses of freedom of speech, press and libel, some of the effects were positive. Such decisions gave cartoonists and publishers the freedom to express their opinions, and also the “permission” to satirize. That is why today we see cartoons with double entendre lampooning politicians, actors, and other public figures. Usually, those types of publications are supposed to make the readers laugh, or maybe to make people understand the criticism of the issues presented in journals, newspapers and magazines. They also are supposed to be an easy way to digest new laws, public issues, and other decisions made by the government. In addition, publishers also intend to caricature and give a nice funny look to some of the publications. However, the bad effects are mostly shown in the cartoonists’ and publishers’ victims. They find it hard to be criticized, humiliated, or become victims of defamation without feeling regret and anger toward their aggressors, even though the odds to winning a legal case are very low.
To summarize, it is important to understand that public figures are human beings like everyone else. They have personal images they care for, and those images can be destroyed in a second by a wrong comment or false statement. The media have their right to disclose information about public figures that might not be necessarily true all the time. But also, famous personalities have to understand that they are easy targets for the media, and that they can be wrongly accused of different actions. Therefore the media like the public figures have their right to protect themselves against each other’s accusations. This is why the First Amendment to the Constitution was created. The advantages given by the First Amendment, give everyone the right to free press and to freely express. We need to be clear that if the clauses of the First Amendment are not taken seriously, those rights can become a slippery slope in terms of legal issues since either these laws protect or punish any one of the implicated because sometimes who we think is guilty, might be not necessarily.