Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)

-

Ponente: REHNQUIST, C.J.

Certiorari to the US CA for the 4th Circuit

Facts:

Respondent Jerry Falwell, a nationally known minister who has been active as a commentator on politics and public affairs, sued Petitioner Hustler Magazine, Inc. ("HUSTLER")  and its publisher, Petitioner Larry Flynt, to recover damages for invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the publication of an advertisement “parody”,  which, among other things, portrayed him as having engaged in a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse.

The District Court directed a verdict against respondent on the privacy claim, and submitted the other two claims to a jury.

The jury found for petitioners on the defamation claim, but found for respondent on the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and awarded damages: $100k in compensatory damages,; $50k in punitive damages.

On appeal, the US CA for the 4th Circuit affirmed the judgment against the Petitioners.

• The court rejected Ps' argument that the "actual malice" standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, must be met before respondent can recover for emotional distress.

• CA also rejected the contention that, because the jury found that the ad parody did not describe actual facts about R, the ad was an opinion that is protected by the First Amendment. CA opined that this was "irrelevant," as the issue is "whether the ad's publication was sufficiently outrageous to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress."

Peitioners filed a petition for rehearing en banc, but this was denied by a divided court. Hence this certiorari.

-----------------------------------------------------

Respondent Falwell's Position: a State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury, even when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved.

-----------------------------------------------------

WON a public figure may recover damages for emotional harm caused by the publication of an ad parody offensive to him.

Held: No.

(1) In the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment. In Garrison v. Louisiana, the Court held that, even when a speaker or writer is motivated by hatred or ill-will, his expression was protected by the First Amendment:

“Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth.”

(2) The art of the cartoonist is often not reasoned or evenhanded, but slashing and one-sided. One cartoonist expressed the nature of the art in these words:

The political cartoon is a weapon of attack, of scorn and ridicule and satire; it is least effective when it tries to pat some politician on the back. It is usually as welcome as a bee sting, and is always controversial in some quarters.

From the viewpoint of history, it is clear that our political discourse would have been considerably poorer without them.

(3) There is no doubt that the caricature of Respondent and his mother published in Hustler is at best a distant cousin of the political cartoons. If it were possible by laying down a principled standard to separate the one from the other, public discourse would probably suffer little or no harm. But there is no such standard, and the pejorative description "outrageous" does not supply one. "Outrageousness" in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the 1st Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here.

DECISION: Reversed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000

-
Ponente: KAPUNAN J. A Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition. Summary:  Petitioner: Integrated Bar of the Philippines Respondent: Hon. Ronaldo B. Zamora, Gen. Panfilo M. Lacson, Gen. Edgar B. Aglipay, Gen. Angelo Reyes President Estrada deployed the Marines to patrol certain parts of Metro Manila. IBP questioned  the constitutionality of this action. The SC decided that the IBP has no locus standi but chose to take cognizance of the petition as it is of paramount importance to the public (especially in light of Martial Law). SC decided that Estrada's deployment of Marines is constitutional and dismissed the filed petition. ---------------------------------------- Facts: President Estrada, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief and through a verbal directive, deployed the Marines, to join the PNP in visibility patrols in response to alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila. The PNP Chief, through Police Chief Superintendent Edgar B....
Read more

Aurbach v. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corp., G.R. Nos. 75875, 75951 & 75975-76, December 15, 1989

-
Summary:  American Standard Inc (ASI), a foreign corporation in US entered into an Agreement with Saniwares and some Filipino investors whereby ASI and the Filipino investors agreed to participate in the ownership of an enterprise which would engage primarily in the business of manufacturing in the Philippines and selling here and abroad vitreous china and sanitary wares. ASI agreed to accept the role of minority vis-a-vis the Filipino investors, on the condition that the Agreement should contain provisions to protect ASI as the minority. One such provision is: As long as American-Standard shall own at least 30% of the outstanding stock of the Corporation, three of the nine directors shall be designated by American-Standard, and the other six shall be designated by the other stockholders of the Corporation. (Section 5(a) of the Agreement) . The 30% capital stock of ASI was later increased to 40%. On Mar 8, 1983, the election of the members of the board of directors was held. - Th...
Read more

Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 203766, 203818-19, 203922 & etc., April 2, 2013

-
Summary: COMELEC disqualified petitioners from participating in the May 13 elections,  by denying their new petitions for registration, or by canceling of their existing registration or accreditation as party-list organizations. Petitioners assailed the decision before the SC. SC reversed its ruling in Bagong Bayani and Banat, and remanded the petitions to the COMELEC to determine again the qualifications of these organizations but this time based on the parameters the SC laid down in this case. SC ruled that limiting the party-lists system to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors violates Sec 5, Art 6 the 1987 Constitution and RA 7941. ---------------------------------------- Ponente: CARPIO J. Facts: COMELEC issued resolutions that denied or canceled the party-list registrations or the accreditation of the ff 13 organizations: ASIN, Manila Teachers, ALA-EH, 1AAAP, AKIN, AAB, AI, ALONA, KALIKASAN, GUARDIAN, PPP and PBB. Either the (1) the sectors they respectively repre...
Read more