Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
Citation: 485 U.S. 46 (1988)
Facts
Hustler Magazine published a parody advertisement depicting Jerry Falwell, a prominent televangelist, as having had his “first time” with his mother in an outhouse, intending it as satire. Falwell sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
Issue
Does the First Amendment permit a public figure to recover damages for IIED based on a parody publication that could not reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts?
Holding
No. The First Amendment bars public figures from recovering for IIED for parody or satire that no reasonable person could take as stating actual facts. The outrageousness of a parody publication cannot alone be grounds for IIED liability where public figures are involved.
Rule
First Amendment limits on IIED for public figures: A public figure may not recover for IIED based on a publication that: (1) is a parody or satire, (2) cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about the plaintiff, and (3) relates to matters of public concern. The New York Times v. Sullivan actual malice standard governs; without a false statement of fact, there can be no IIED liability.
Significance
- Applied First Amendment protection to IIED claims by public figures involving parody/satire
- IIED remains available for private figures (no constitutional limitation)
- Important in the context of political satire, editorial cartoons, and comedy
- Distinguished from Snyder v. Phelps (2011), where the Court similarly protected offensive speech on public issues at public events