Case Brief Hustler Magazine v. Jerry Falwell Case - 550 Words

Case Brief Hustler Magazine V. Jerry Falwell Case (Essay Sample) Content: Case Brief Hustler Magazine V. Jerry Falwell CaseHUSTLER MAGAZINE V. JERRY FALWELL, 485 U.S. 46; OR 108 S. CT 876, 99 L. Ed. 2d 41, (1988) U.S. 941FACTS: The November 1983 matter of Hustler Magazine presented a burlesque of a commercial for Campari Liqueur that had the name and photo of Offender and labeled à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Jerry Falwell talks about his first time.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ The parody aimed to impersonate other Campari ads, which pointed to the idea of the first instance an individual had a taste of Campari Liqueur. The parody depicted Offenderà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s first time as a drunken, incestuous rendezvous happenstance with his mother in an outhouse. Respondent sued Petitioners, alleging invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit discovered for Petitioner on the defamation and invasion of private entitlements because no rational person would think through th e parody as true. The same courts held for Offender on the issue of deliberate infliction of emotional suffering. The Supreme Court of the United States approved for certiorari. The parody was written in such a manner that Falwell is a hypocrite who preaches only when drunk.ISSUE: Whether a public image could recuperate costs for emotional injuries caused by an application of a commercial parody offensive to him, and doubtless gross and repugnant in the eyes of the majority.HOLDING: In answering the above question in the negative, the court emphasized that the First Amendment emphasizes the fundamental importance of allowing people to express themselves on matters of public interest and concern. The court also recognized that robust political debate is likely to result in speech that is critical of public officials and public figures that are involved in the solution of crucial public queries or, because of their popularity direct events in sectors of concern to the community. More over, those who comment on public affairs are protected against Liability.LAW: The First AmendmentRATIONALE: Falwell argued that, in emotional distress cases, the courts should impose liability when speech subjects an individual to severe emotional distress and the utterance intended to inflict emotional suffering, was outrageous, and did, in fact, impact drastic emotional suffering.While the court agreed that statements designed to inflict emotional pain should not receive much solicitude, the Court disagreed with Falwell. The Court noted that many things done with...