More specifically, the Court addressed whether “a public figure may recover damages for emotional harm caused by the publication of an ad parody offensive to him, and doubtless gross and repugnant in the eyes of most.” The main issue for the Court was whether the award for the intentional infliction of emotional distress in this case was consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Justice Rehnquist delivered the majority opinion of the Court. Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to review the appeal court’s decision because it involved a novel question about the First Amendment limitations on free speech in order to protect citizens from intentional infliction of emotional distress. Sullivan is appropriate in the context of an emotional distress claim. The court reasoned that the standard was met in the present case by the state law requirement, and the jury’s finding, that the defendants had acted intentionally or recklessly to inflict emotional distress. It agreed that the defendants were entitled to the same level of First Amendment protections on the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress that they were afforded on the defamation claim but said that this does not mean a literal application of the “actual malice” rule laid down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment in its entirety. Falwell was awarded $100,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 punitive damages from each defendant. or events,” but ruled in his favor on the emotional distress claim, stating that he should be awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The jury subsequently found against the respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the parody could not “reasonably be understood as describing actual facts. The judge directed a verdict against Falwell on the invasion of privacy claim. In small print at the bottom of the page, the advertisement contained the disclaimer, “ad parody-not to be taken seriously.” The magazine’s table of contents also listed the ad as “Fiction Ad and Personality Parody.”įalwell brought a lawsuit against Hustler and its publisher in Federal court to recover damages for three tortious actions: invasion of privacy, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Indeed, the advertisement, in its entirety, tried to portray the minister as a hypocrite who would preach only when he was drunk. The magazine published an alleged interview with Falwell in which he discussed that his “first time” was during a drunken, incestuous relationship with his mother. The inside front cover of the November 1983 Hustler magazine featured a satirical advertisement for a liqueur brand, displaying the name and picture of Jerry Falwell, a nationally known minister, with a title that read: “Jerry Falwell talks about his first time.” The use of the phrase “first time” referred to the liqueur brand’s advertisements in which various celebrities were interviewed about their first time trying the product. Reversing the Court of Appeals judgement which had affirmed the minister’s award of damages, the Court restated the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions at the center of the First of Amendment and said that the sort of expression complained of did not come within any of the exceptions to First Amendment protection. Jerry Falwell, a well-known minister and political commentator, sued Hustler Magazine for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentionally causing emotional distress by publishing an advertisement “parody” depicting him in an incestuous drunken rendezvous with his mother. Supreme Court held that public figures cannot recover damages for a publication’s infliction of emotional distress without showing that it contains a false statement of fact made with actual malice.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |