or events,” but ruled in his favor on the emotional distress claim, stating that he should be awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The jury subsequently found against the respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the parody could not “reasonably be understood as describing actual facts. The judge directed a verdict against Falwell on the invasion of privacy claim. In small print at the bottom of the page, the advertisement contained the disclaimer, “ad parody-not to be taken seriously.” The magazine’s table of contents also listed the ad as “Fiction Ad and Personality Parody.”įalwell brought a lawsuit against Hustler and its publisher in Federal court to recover damages for three tortious actions: invasion of privacy, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Indeed, the advertisement, in its entirety, tried to portray the minister as a hypocrite who would preach only when he was drunk. The magazine published an alleged interview with Falwell in which he discussed that his “first time” was during a drunken, incestuous relationship with his mother. The inside front cover of the November 1983 Hustler magazine featured a satirical advertisement for a liqueur brand, displaying the name and picture of Jerry Falwell, a nationally known minister, with a title that read: “Jerry Falwell talks about his first time.” The use of the phrase “first time” referred to the liqueur brand’s advertisements in which various celebrities were interviewed about their first time trying the product. Reversing the Court of Appeals judgement which had affirmed the minister’s award of damages, the Court restated the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions at the center of the First of Amendment and said that the sort of expression complained of did not come within any of the exceptions to First Amendment protection. Jerry Falwell, a well-known minister and political commentator, sued Hustler Magazine for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentionally causing emotional distress by publishing an advertisement “parody” depicting him in an incestuous drunken rendezvous with his mother. 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.
0 kommentar(er)
