In the US Supreme Court case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell what were the circumstances surrounding the case?

Answer 1

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

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell established First Amendment protection for publishing subjectively offensive statements about public figures (in the absence of libel), even if the public figure alleges the statements cause emotional distress.

The case against Hustler and its publisher, Larry Flynt, arose from a parody of a well-known series of Compari liquor magazine ads that ran in the early 1980s. The real ads featured photographs and interviews with well known celebrities, under the headline "[Celebrity] talks about his first time." "First time" referred to drinking Compari, but was an intentional double-entendre implying a first sexual experience.

The parody featured a picture of Reverend Jerry Falwell, a fundamentalist minister and leader of an ultraconservative political group called the Moral Majority under the standard headline, "Jerry Falwell talks about his first time." The layout looked like an actual Compari ad, but featured the phrase "Ad parody. Not to be taken seriously." in small type at the bottom of the page. The table of contents also stated the ad content was fictional. Flynt published the November 1983 piece in a deliberate attempt to "settle a score" with Falwell over his public denunciation of Flynt's private life.

The criticism against Falwell was scathing. In the mock interview, "Falwell" claimed to have lost his virginity to his mother in a drunken rendezvous in the family outhouse. It also implied Falwell was a hypocrite who only preached when drunk.

Jerry Falwell filed a $45 million civil action against both Hustler Magazine and Larry Flint, asserting charges of invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In order to underwrite legal expenses, the preacher solicited donations from members of the Moral Majority, viewers of his Old Time Gospel Hour, and unnamed private patrons. In all, he raised $717,000.00 from supporters.

Larry Flynt retaliated by filing copyright infringement charges against Falwell for circulating copies of the Hustler parody in his mail solicitations (a cheeky move, considering Flynt was guilty of copyright and trademark infringement against Compari), and by running the piece a second time, in the March 1984 issue (on the newsstands in February 1984). The court later dismissed Flynt's case on the grounds that Falwell's use of the parody fell under the Fair Use Clause of the Copyright Act.

Falwell's attorney, Norman Roy Grutman, filed a second count of each civil charge with the US District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Flynt hired Allan Isaacman to defend his case.

One of the more memorable incidents in the case occurred during the pretrial phase, when Grutman attempted to take a deposition from Flynt while Flynt was serving time in a North Carolina prison on unrelated contempt of court charges.

Flynt, who had been shot and was paralyzed from an encounter with a white supremacist gunman in 1975, was wheeled into the room handcuffed to a hospital gurney. Heavily medicated, but not incoherent, Flynt portrayed himself as mentally ill during the taped deposition, responding to Grutman's questions with crazy and inflammatory answers.

When asked to state his name for the record, the publisher replied, "Christopher Columbus Cornwallis I.P.Q. Harvey H. Apache Pugh. They call me Larry Flynt. And all those historical figures." When asked to clarify that he was known as Larry Flynt, the man responded, "No. Jesus H. Flynt, Esquire." His responses continued in that vein throughout his testimony. Against his attorney's advice, Flynt proudly claimed responsibility for the satirical ad, freely admitted his intention was to "settle a score," and stated his goal was "to assassinate" Falwell's integrity. Flynt's testimony was damaging to his defense.

Allan Isaacman attempted to have the videotape excluded as trial evidence on the grounds that his client was mentally incompetent, on drugs, and suffering from the manic phase of Bipolar disorder at the time of deposition. Chief Judge James Turk, who presided over the case, initially agreed to withhold the tape from the jury, but reversed his decision on the day of the trial.

Judge Turk dismissed the invasion of privacy charges against Flynt because Falwell was a public figure who was subject to fair comment. He allowed the two counts each of libel and intention infliction of emotional distress to stand and be heard by the jury.

Falwell presented himself to the jury as reserved and proper, and expressed anguish at the "besmirching and defiling of my dear mother's memory." Falwell told the jury his father had been an alcoholic, but that he had been a teetotaler since 1952 (more than 30 years). He also described his activities as leader of the Moral Majority, and referred to himself as the second most admired man in America, behind the President [Reagan]. Falwell acknowledged attempting to influence public opinion against pornography, and denouncing Hustler and Flynt personally.

Flynt's testimony at trial was far different from the deposition he gave in prison. On direct examination by his own attorney, he told the jury the idea for the Falwell ad originated with a freelance writer, Mike Salisbury, who sold the magazine four or five ideas that day, the Compari ad featuring Falwell among them. Flynt denied that he or his staff participated in creating the ad, and claimed the target was Compari, not Falwell. Falwell's name and photo were used only because Falwell's public image was the opposite of the impression Compari attempted to project. Flynt adamantly denied having any intent to harm Falwell's reputation.

Flynt testified:

"Well, we wanted to poke fun at Campari for their type advertisement because the innuendos that they had in their ads made you sort of confused as to if the person was talking about their time as far as a sexual encounter or whether they were talking about their first time as far as drinking Campari.

"Of course, another thing that you had to do is to have a person, you know, that is the complete opposite of what you would expect. If someone such as me might have been in there I don't know how people would have interpreted it. But if somebody like Reverend Falwell is in there it is very obvious that he wouldn't do any of these things; that they are not true; that it's not to be taken seriously.

"But where the irony and humor is found in this, while it might not be funny to certain people and they may not see the satire in there, they have to consider how different people around the country perceive Falwell to be in terms of his political activities, his beliefs, how he wants people to perceive him as, you know, he would like to be loved, have recognition, acceptance by the people. There's nothing wrong with this, but when it happens, you know, ego comes into play.

"The best example I can say is when somebody asks me why Reverend Falwell, the only thing I can point out is why did Walter Mondale, during the debates in Louisville, "Do you want Reverend Falwell to be involved in selecting the next Supreme Court?" Now, that was strictly to make a political point, but that means that he, more than any other evangelist is involved in the mainstream of politics. And there is a great deal of people in this country, especially the ones that read Hustler Magazine, that feel that there should be a separation between church and state. So, when something like this appears it will give people a chuckle. They know this was not intended to defame the Reverend Falwell, his mother or any members of his family because no one could take it serious."

On December 8, 1984, the jury in the trial of Falwell v. Flynt returned a verdict in favor of Larry Flynt and Hustler on the charges of libel, determining the ad was too outrageous to be believable and had never been presented as fact. They found in favor of Falwell, however, on the separate counts of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and awarded him a total of $200,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

On August 5, 1986, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court verdict and upheld the award for damages. On November 4, 1986, the Fourth Circuit denied Flynt's appeal for rehearing on constitutional grounds.

Flynt's attorney petitioned the US Supreme Court and was granted certiorari. Isaacman and Grutman argued before the Court on December 7, 1987. By then, the case had become focused on First Amendment issues, with Isaacman asserting the right of political speech and Grutman arguing the ad was so outrageous it should present an exception to First Amendment protection.

The US Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling against Flynt and Hustler, and threw out the jury award, holding that public figures cannot collect damages for "emotional distress" in the absence of a finding of libel with "actual malice," a standard set in New York Times v. Sullivan, (1964).

Chief Justice Rehnquist, speaking for the Court, quoted from another First Amendment case, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation,(1978):

"[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas."

For more information, see Related Questions and Related Links, below.

Answer 2

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

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" standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan,376 US 254 (1964). 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. The "Falwell" character was also portrayed as a hypocrite who only preached when drunk. The jury acquitted Hustler of libel charges, which should have rendered the application of "actual malice" moot, but awarded monetary damages for the two counts of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court decision, then denied Hustler a rehearing challenging the verdict's constitutionality in light of New York Times v. Sullivan.

The US Supreme Court disagreed with the jury award for emotional distress because the ad could not be "reasonably understood as representing actual facts or events," criteria (in addition to actual malice) that must be met for a public figure to prove libel. Allowing the the award to stand in the absence of a finding of libel would set a dangerous precedent tending to have a chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment free speech.

This case was memorialized in the Academy Award-winning film, "The People vs. Larry Flynt" (1996). Larry Flynt is the publisher of Hustler Magazine.

For more information, see Related Links, below.