Answer:
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 US 46 (1988)
Not at all. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell involved a misapplication of defamation criteria set in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964). The lower courts incorrectly allowed a civil jury to award Jerry Falwell a total of $200,000 in compensatory and punitive damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the "actual malice" test the 1964 case required to establish libel against a public figure. "Actual malice" means a published statement must be made with actual knowledge that a statement is false, or with a reckless disregard for the truth. "Actual malice" is not synonymous with "malicious intent," meaning a desire to cause harm.
Falwell's "distress" arose from a parody of a Compari liquor ad the magazine ran (see Related Links to view the ad) in November 1983 and March 1984, implying Falwell lost his virginity to his mother during a drunken encounter in the family outhouse, and that Falwell was a hypocrite who only preached when drunk.
Parody is a legally accepted means of public criticism protected under the First Amendment, even if the satire is mean-spirited or offensive, and crosses into the realm of "malicious intent." Falwell argued the ad was so outrageous it shouldn't qualify for First Amendment protection, but the argument actually bolstered Flynt's case: The ad was so preposterous, no reasonable person would believe it. The Court held that "outrageousness" was too subjective to use as a basis of legal theory that could open the door to thousands of law suits, and chill the free expression of opinion protected by the First Amendment.
Falwell's other problem lay in the fact that the jury in Hustler's civil trial had found Larry Flynt and the magazine not guilty of libel, because parody qualifies as fair comment, and because the ad was never implied to be true. Without a finding of libel, the question of "actual malice" becomes moot.
The Supreme Court held that Flynt could not collect damages based on "emotional distress" in the absence of a tort (civil wrong). In criminal law, this would be analogous to sentencing a defendant after the jury found him or her not guilty.
For more information, see Related Questions and Related Links, below.
