Hustler V Falwell Analysis

I. Introduction

The 1996 movie, The People vs. Larry Flynt, is a story about Larry Flynt, owner of Hustler Magazine, getting in trouble with legal issues due to his magazines containing sexual explicit content. Larry had previous history of owning many strip clubs throughout Ohio which initially led him into producing these magazines. People throughout the country attempted to stop Larry from producing these magazines saying that is violated many “community standards” but this didn’t stop him and he was committed to speak up for his rights. Later, Larry gets sued by Jerry Falwell for publishing a parody of him having a sexual experience with his mother. The trial court found Falwell and his intentional infliction of emotional distress

Larry Flynt, reflects the constitutional subject Hustler v. Falwell flawlessly without missing out any detail. The constitutional subject consists of Hustler Magazine who is being sued by Jerry Falwell for parody of him having a sexual relation with his mother. You could tell that this is exactly what occurred in the film as mentioned earlier because the film used identical names as well as constitutional matters similar to accurately represent the constitutional subject. The concern with the court case was if the first amendment would protect making insulting statements to public figures as well as if the fourteenth amendment that would provide equal protection of rights. After proceeding through multiple courts, the final decision led to the first and fourteenth amendment prohibiting public figures from suing for emotional distress without showing that the statement made is false and contains “actual

Larry Flynt educates the public on the accurate meaning of constitution through many different examples. The constitution could be very difficult to understand if not taught with clear detail. The court case, Hustler v. Falwell, was one of the most important court case due to its connection with the the first and fourteenth amendment. The main question is, “Does the first amendment expand to cover statements made about public figures causing emotional distress for them?” The court case was sent through multiple courts before coming to a final decision by the supreme court ruling in favor of Hustler Magazine. Many people don’t know that only public figures, which include politicians, celebrities, or business leaders, can only sue for emotional distress if statement was made with “actual malice.” Before this popular culture, most people including myself would conclude that you could make any statement you wish about a public figure, as long as the statement contained information that was true, and not worry about getting sued. Many newspaper and magazine companies were publishing many articles that contained information on these public figure’s personal life which led to them suing these companies. Hustler Magazine were one of these companies but the Supreme Court’s decision went in its favor and concluded that public figures could only sue to statements with false information that caused emotional distress. The people and many companies could acquire a lot of