holding that the First Amendment prohibits public figures and public officials from recovering for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of publications such as the advertisement parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with “actual malice”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the First Amendment prohibits public figures and public officials from recovering for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of publications such as the advertisement parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with “actual malice”
- holding that farcical interview published in pornographic magazine in which minister admits to a “drunken incestuous rendezvous” with his mother in an out-house was not actionable because it “could not ‘reasonably be understood as describing actual facts ... or actual events in which [the minister] participated’ ”
- holding that when a claim for defamation fails because a defendant’s speech is constitutionally protected, a claim for intentional infliction of emotional express "cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages.”
- holding public figure may not recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of offensive parody without additionally meeting the constitutional requirement that parody made false statement of fact with actual malice
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned by In Re Amer. continental/lincoln Sav. & Loan, 884 F. Supp. 1388 (1995)
However, the continuing viability of Chaves' holding is highly questionable in light of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988).
Distinguished
Distinguished by Bowman v. Heller, 1 Mass. L. Rptr. 51 (1993)
Despite Bowman’s status as a public figure, Hustler Magazine is distinguishable from the present case in two important aspects.
The opinion
Justice White,
concurring in the judgment.
As I see it, the decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964), has little to do with this case, for here the jury found that the ad contained no assertion of fact. But I agree with the Court that the judgment below, which penalized the publication of the parody, cannot be squared with the First Amendment.