Hustler v. Falwell :: essays research papers

slattern v. FalwellHustler Magazine versus Jerry Falwell was a case that compound m both key elements. number 1 of on the whole it was a case that examined if a public see such as Jerry Falwell could collect for emotional remedy sustained to him by a mimicry that was published in an replication of Hustler Magazine. Secondly, did Hustler invade Falwells privacy by publishing the contents of the parody? The most important aspect of the case, that was under review, was if Hustler was in accordance with their First Amendment Rights, of freedom of speech, by publishing the parody.The parody in question was published in an issue of Hustler in a faux advertisement for Campari Liqueur. In the advertisement entitled, Jerry Falwell tells about his root time, Falwell is portrayed as giving an interview. In the fake interview Falwell negotiation about his first sexual experience, which was with his mother, and describes how he was drunk and the experience took place in an outhouse. T he interview too tells how Falwell doesnt go out in front of the pulpit unless hes sloshed. The district accost ready Hustler Magazine liable for Falwells emotional distress and give him 100,000 dollars in damages. However, the court did rule in favor of Hustler in that they did non invade Falwells privacy since he was a public figure. They also ruled against Falwells libel claim, stating that Hustler did not publish anything that a reasonable person would misinterpret as the facts.The big argument in the case, when it was introduced to the Supreme Court, was if the District Court had deprived Hustler Magazine of their First Amendment rights. Since Hustler was a magazine of nationwide circulation and since Falwell is a national figure Hustler argued that the parody was in no way wrong since any reasonable person would identify it as humor rather than facts. The Court agreed and it found that Falwell should not be rewarded any damages.The Chief referee Rehnquist presided over t he case. In his statement of judgment Rehnquist acknowledged that the article wasnt of the best taste. He also acknowledged that there isnt truly a good way to distinguish between cases of this nature. His argument of this was since all jurors have different views and opinions that verdicts in cases such as this would be of opinion rather than clearly defined by the law. He acknowledged that not all speech is protected equally by the First Amendment besides this case didnt possess such speech.