Hustler Magazine vs. Jerry Farewell

384 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Describe defamation in media laws

Hustler Magazine vs. Jerry Farewell

In 1983, Hustler Magazine published a parody of Campari Liqueur that contained the name and picture of Reverend Jerry Falwell. The parody was entitled “Jerry Falwell talks about his first time.” Campari Liqueur in reality did have an advertisement, which featured various celebrities talking about their “first time”, but by the end of the advertisement, it was obvious they were talking about the “first time” they sampled Campari. In Hustler’s parody, Jerry Falwell is “interviewed” and he states that his “first time” was with his drunken mother in an outhouse. On the bottom of the parody, Hustler Magazine added in small print "ADD PARADOY NOT TO BE TAKE SERIOUSLY." The magazine's table of contents also lists the ad as "Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody."

Jerry Falwell sued soon after the issue was published. Personally, I think if you are a public figure, like Jerry Falwell was, you are automatically putting yourself up for public humiliation. It’s just a price to pay for being famous. I do however think that Hustler Magazine went a step too far in saying that Jerry Falwell lost his virginity to his mother. Jerry Falwell sued Hustler Magazine for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional stress. In 1984, the U.S. District Court for Virginia's Western District dismissed the invasion of privacy claim because Falwell is a public figure. Hustler was found guilty of inflicting emotional distress and Falwell was awarded $200,000. The court ruled against Falwell on the libel claim.

The lower court found that the ad parody was not reasonably believable. Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the ad was a satire, and to allow a jury to punish satire would be to allow jurors to decide a verdict based on personal taste. In 1988, the case was taken to the Supreme Court where they reversed the emotional distress verdict previously granted to Jerry Falwell. The Supreme Court reversed the verdict because the First and the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit public figures, such as Jerry Falwell, from recovering damages for emotional distress.

I think that Hustler Magazine is attended for an audience who does not take offence in crude jokes or comments. If you read something in an adult magazine, it should not be taken seriously. Another thing that bewilders me is how Jerry Falwell found out about the parody.

Show More
Related

  • Case Study: Marvin Pickering Case

    1447 Words  | 3 Pages

    The court stated the appellant’s statements were false concerned issues that were important to the public’s attention. The statements were neither shown nor could be presumed to interfere with the appellant’s performance of his teaching duties or the school’s operation (Oyez, n.d.). In the matter of false statements, the Supreme Court looked back at New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The school board was unable to prove the statements were malicious in nature.

    Read More

  • Arizona V. Hicks

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    The court for this case found that the search and seizure of the stereo violated the fourth and fourteenth Amendments. The Decision was 6 votes for Hicks and 3 votes against.

    Read More

  • Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory

    1259 Words  | 3 Pages

    The case Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory did in fact uphold the jury's findings that employees who are on the older side had lost their jobs through a layoff plan. This discrimination was unintentional. However, the policy did have an impact that was deemed discriminatory and the firm could have reached its goals through a different method that would not effectively discriminate. The reason for the suit had to do with the fact that thirty of thirty-one people who were laid off were over the age of forty. There were 26 plaintiffs who did go to trial while some of the others settled with the company on their own. In the end, the jury awarded plaintiffs a total award of $4.2. The case was appealed and at the time, Knolls argued that the law really does not allow disparate impact claims, citing Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), where a claim involved disparate treatment and what was needed was proof of intentional discrimination. The Court claims that the Hazen Paper Court had not resolved the appropriate use of ADEA in terms of disparate impact. It was further stated that the decisions to come from other circuits do not necessarily overrule prior cases. The idea that disparate impact claims may not be allowed under ADEA is therefore rejected.

    Read More

  • Pets, Inc. Case Study

    670 Words  | 2 Pages

    In prior cases regarding parody, the court has adopted different statutory interpretations. In Harley Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli, 164 F.3d 806 (2nd Cir. 1998), the defendant like Pets, Inc., admitted to purposively creating an association with the plaintiff’s mark, the wordings used by the CEO of Pets, Inc. are not as explicit as that of Grottanelli, however, he clearly states that he designed Petpel No. 13 to evoke fun of Chapel. His statement

    Read More

  • texas vs johnson

    699 Words  | 2 Pages

    Johnson and his lawyers were dissatisfied with this decision and made an appeal to the Fifth Texas Supreme Judicial District. This appeal, made on May 8, 1985 would be titled as Texas vs. Johnson. The defense argued that Johnson was prosecuted in violation of the first Amendment, clearly states that no law may take away a person's freedom of speech or expression, and of the Bill of Rights and the free speech clause of the Texas Constitution. Johnson argued that in his opinion, flag burning is part of freedom o...

    Read More

  • The Supreme Court Case Of Texas V. Johnson And The Freedom Of Speech

    1782 Words  | 4 Pages

    Texas v. Johnson expanded the rights of symbolic speech and freedom of expression under the First Amendment and was presented as a precedence for future cases along with influencing the final decision on the revision of California, in 1931, was seen as a violation of the First Amendment after Stromberg was arrested for displaying a red flag as a sign of resistance against the government. This was the first declaration that symbolic speech is protected under the First Amendment (“Timeline of Flag...”). In 1943, the issue of a law requiring people to salute the flag was raised in the West Virginia v. Barnett court case. In this case, the importance of freedom of expression under the First Amendment was highlighted by Justice Jackson (“Supreme Court Cases”). In 1969, Street v New York it was decided that no state is able to convict a person based on verbal comments insulting the flag.

    Read More

  • Westboro Baptist Church Case Study

    837 Words  | 2 Pages

    The court found Westboro Baptist Church liable for millions of dollars on the tort charges of intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and civil conspiracy. Westboro fought the verdict by claiming it was “grossly excessive

    Read More

  • Essay On Des Moines Independent Community Schools

    579 Words  | 2 Pages

    It was irrational for these students to be suspended from the school. The high school students named John F. Tinker, who was fifteen-years-old, John’s younger sister Mary Beth Tinker, who was thirteen-years-old, and their friend Christopher Eckhardt, who was sixteen years old, should not have been suspended. They were under the protection of the First Amendment. The parents of those students sued the school district for violating the students’ right of expressions and sought an injunction to prevent the school from decupling the students. The Supreme Court of the United Sates stepped in and the question of law was if. They ruled in the favor of the Tinker’s because it was in a seven to two decision "Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District."

    Read More

  • Texas v. Johnson Argumentative

    691 Words  | 2 Pages

    The majority opinion of the court was the most accurate for this case because of the fact that Johnson was expressing his personal beliefs and opinions. The 5 to 4 decision was the most constitutional and well thought through judgment. Johnson was not threatening the United States in any way, let alone the people of the United States. Although society may find expressive events hostile, the government cannot ban it because it’s expressive conduct and it underlies in one’s First Amendment rights. The majority opinion was the most constitutionally accurate, but one may think, does our Constitution need revising?

    Read More

  • The Fourteenth Amendment

    730 Words  | 2 Pages

    Overall, the ruling in this case was a perfect interpretation of the Constitution. Despite opposition claiming that it is not addressed in the Constitution, too few rights are ever addressed in the Constitution of the United States. That is why there is a thing called Judicial Review. By utilizing judicial review, the interpreters of the law –Supreme Court, may make changes to policies and laws. Abortion, medicinal marijuana, and marriage fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection since they correspond to the rights and liberties of US citizens.

    Read More

  • Obscenity Vs Pornography

    626 Words  | 2 Pages

    This is indeed a touchy subject. This particular court case is one that has sparked a great deal of debate and one that requires some understanding of Miller v. California and New York v. Farber. Two semesters ago, my Media Law class spent a little time reviewing each of these cases plus the one we are discussing and even after doing so, I still find this ruling a bit disturbing.

    Read More

  • Freedom of Speech: Dissecting Snyder v. Phelps

    2117 Words  | 5 Pages

    Phelps, welcomed the notion that members of the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to use their First Amendment rights. However, Justice Alito maintained that the manner in which the church expressed themselves does not constitute First Amendment protections because “[t]hey first issued a press release and thus turned Matthew’s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church, approached as closely as they could without trespassing, and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability.” Justice Alito argued that the picketing done by the church caused Snyder grave emotional distress and damage given that Snyder was mentally vulnerable at a moment where a father loses their son. Justice Alito argued that neither Snyder nor his son were public figures. Therefore, Justice Alito pointed out that the church chose to exploit the emotional vulnerability of a private individual. According to Rosalie Levinson of the Suffolk University Law Review, the Court’s ruling on Snyder v. Phelps shows that “the government’s only valid interest is in ensuring peace and tranquility, whereas the real harm posed by fighting words, including targeted hate speech, is not physical violence, but the emotional damage inflicted by the words themselves.” In other words, Levinson is suggesting that the Court’s decision has made it so that individuals can express themselves to the point of inflicting severe emotional harm to others, so long as the expression is lawful and remains peaceful. Levinson articulates that this notion is troublesome considering that “[h]ate speech . . . is often targeted at the least powerful, most vulnerable segments of our society.” In the view of Levinson, mental harm due to hate speech and verbal dehumanization of individuals, which leads to a negative effect on that individual’s physical health with regards to heightened heart

    Read More

  • An examination of how Sherlock Holmes' abilities and techniques,

    822 Words  | 2 Pages

    of women, but I have not heard him do it of late" (A Scandal in

    Read More

  • The Evolution of Advertising

    1076 Words  | 3 Pages

    “Magazine Ads of the 50s through the 80s.” BlogSpot, N.p. 8 August 2008. Web. 4 October 2009.

    Read More

  • The Morphing of Child Pornography

    748 Words  | 2 Pages

    On December 17, 1999, in Free Speech Coalition v. Reno, the Ninth Circuit struck down the law as a content-based restriction on protected speech not in furtherance of any compelling governmental interest because the prohibited images are not of actual children. According to that C...

    Read More

More about Hustler Magazine vs. Jerry Farewell

Open Document