# Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell

> Supreme Court of the United States · February 24, 1988 · 485 U.S. 46

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431219

## Case

- **Full name:** HUSTLER MAGAZINE, INC., Et Al. v. FALWELL
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** February 24, 1988
- **Citations:** 485 U.S. 46; 108 S. Ct. 876; 99 L. Ed. 2d 41; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 941
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by White
- **Judges:** Rehnquist, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, White, Kennedy
- **Cited by:** 817 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by In Re Amer. continental/lincoln Sav. & Loan, 884 F. Supp. 1388 (1995).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431219

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 cont…
- 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 i…
- 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
- stating that although the intent to inflict emotional distress “may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431219. Public record. Not legal advice.