Hustler Magazine Vs Falwell Case Study

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell Taylor, 1

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell ? public figures protected from libel

Jordan Taylor

Liberty High School

3AB

We would not live in the world we live in today if it weren?t for the contributions from the Hustler Magazine v. Falwell case. We live in a society nowadays that all the media does is make up crazy rumors insults about celebrities. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell made that possible by siding with the magazine company in regard that the false parody ad implying that Jerry Falwell?s ?first time? was when he had drunken sexual relations with his own mother, had no ?actual malice? so it was not believable and could not be taken seriously. (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 2015)

The court thought that the claim was in no way believable so it could not be considered defamation or libel. The real question is how far can the 1st Amendment freedom of press really go? By what measures is something deemed as being unbelievable, especially in the gullible-plagued world we live in today? This case is significant because it clears up the issue and gives a better understanding of the issue, but not

Sullivan case was a relevant precedent. This is the case that originally used the term ?actual malice? and decided that it had to be proven as actual malice before any press reports about public officials or any celebrities could be considered as libel. Jerry Falwell actually won the case in a lower court, but when it got to the Supreme Court, they overruled it in favor of Hustler Magazine and Larry Flynt (the owner of Hustler Magazine). There was no dissenting opinions because the case was unanimous in favor of Hustler. The only concurring opinion was from Justice White. He believed that this case was in no way related to the New York Times v. Sullivan because it had ?no assertion of fact?, but says that the company cannot be penalized due to the First Amendment. (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell,