This protection has been extended to cases in which the plaintiff is a public figure, Curtis Publishing Company v. Falwell's lawyers had attempted to show the jury a pattern of ill will and malice on the part of Flynt, his magazine and his magazine distributing company. The context in which the publications about Gary Hart appeared cannot really be compared favorably with what was done here. This testimony would enable a jury to find that Falwell's distress was severe and that it was proximately caused by defendant's publication of the parody. But we doubt that there is any such standard, and we are quite sure that the pejorative description "outrageous" does not supply one. The issues before this court can be grouped into four categories: The court rejected petitioners' argument that the "actual malice" standard of New York Times Co.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell
Justice John Paul Stevens: Whether civil liability could be attached to the protests, which were accompanied by offensive signs and messages, was overridden by the protections under the First Amendment and concerns for the marketplace of ideas. We must decide whether a public figure may recover damages for emotional harm caused by the publication of an ad parody offensive to him and doubtless gross and repugnant in the eyes of most. And I believe as a constitutional rule, the protection of the individual's interest in his own sense of worth and dignity and to be free from this kind of gratuitous onslaught and damage to his feelings is something that ought properly to be left to the States. First, they assert that since Falwell is admittedly a public figure the actual malice standard of New York Times v. I think I felt like weeping.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
That's your proposition, isn't it? I'll never admire him for his views or his opinions. New York Times, that where the gravamen of a complaint is allegedly injurious falsehood, it doesn't matter what you call your claim, because the First Amendment covers that area. Rehnquist joined in when Mr. On its face, the decision applied First Amendment principles to a public figure's attempt to sue a publisher for hurting his feelings. Well, do you think a vicious cartoon should subject the drawer of that cartoon to potential liability?
The above-entitled matter came on for oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at At common law, I suppose the exception was just for fair comment, wasn't it? But that's a far cry from committing incest with your mother in an outhouse. After suing Hustler and Mr. Federal Judge James C. Roosevelt's jutting jaw and cigarette holder have been memorialized by political cartoons with an effect that could not have been obtained by the photographer or the portrait artist.