Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

Extraits

[...] In United States law is a condition required establishing libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." So here, the case extended this standard of actual malice to intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if it had, first, recognized that the “State seeks to prevent not reputational damage”. It ruled against the libel claim in the way that people couldn't, reasonably, believe this caricature, see in it actual facts. It wasn't a part of the private life of Farewell. Nobody could rely on this caricature first because of its grotesque nature and moreover because at the bottom of the page the magazine had written parody not to be taken seriously”. [...]

[...] So, without being prudish or puritan, we can say that the fact that Hustler magazine exists is not to be taken a new look but in this case it went too far. Indeed, freedom of speech has to be restrained when it invades the respect of the rights or the reputation of the others. Libel is an offense which has to be punished. In Hustler Magazine v. Farewell, this offense is really significant because the parody is insulting and degrading. Even, if the facts exposed are not true, we can't deny the outrageous nature of them. [...]

[...] Secondly, the Court examined if Hustler had invaded Falwell's privacy by publishing the contents of the parody. A new area of public law is at stake here. It treats about the privacy of public figures and also about the satirical or critical commentary of these public figures. This ground of invasion of privacy wasn't upheld by the Court because there was no invasion of Farewell's privacy since he was a public figure. Finally, the most important aspect of the case, which was under review, was if Hustler was in accordance with the First Amendment Rights, referring to freedom of speech, by publishing the parody. [...]

[...] Would you like to get sworn at in public? Even people whose job and everyday life is to be at the center of the media or of public life, they have the right to be respected in their intimacy. Some subjects shouldn't be addressed when it obtrudes or is linked to our private life. The blasphemy of this parody could, for some people, be another more reason to condemn Hustler Magazine. However, even if I would have chosen to protect in priority the rights of Farewell, I think that satirical caricatures or parody mustn't be punished and are parts of the freedom of speech. [...]

[...] Hustler Magazine v. Falwell 1. Give the points of the reasoning of the Supreme Court in this case Several elements were involved in this case. To sum up, Hustler Magazine printed an issue showing a satirical caricature parody of the Campari campaign), about first time” of a public figure, Jerry Falwell, who is a preacher and a Baptist Minister, insinuating that it was with his own mother, in an outhouse and being drunk. The heights of bad taste for a religious man and moreover a teetotaler He sued Hustler Magazine on the grounds of invasion of privacy, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress. [...]