Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

Supreme Court of the United States · 1988 · Constitutional Law

First AmendmentIIEDparodypublic figuresConstitutional LawTortsFirst Amendmentintentional infliction of emotional distress

Facts

Hustler published a parody advertisement modeled on Campari ads featuring Jerry Falwell and titled "Jerry Falwell talks about his first time." The parody depicted Falwell as describing a drunken incestuous encounter with his mother in an outhouse and included a small-print disclaimer stating it was an "ad parody -- not to be taken seriously," while the table of contents listed it as fiction and parody. Falwell, a nationally known minister and public commentator, sued for privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury found the parody could not reasonably be understood as describing actual facts or events, rejected libel, but awarded damages for IIED.

Issue

May a public figure recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by an offensive parody publication when the publication could not reasonably be understood as stating actual facts about the public figure? More specifically, does the First Amendment permit IIED liability based on a publication deemed "outrageous" without proof of a false statement of fact made with actual malice?

Rule

Public figures and public officials may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from publications such as the parody at issue unless they show that the publication contains a false statement of fact made with actual malice, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Mercado, a nationally known cable-news commentator from Phoenix, is lampooned in a weekly magazine sold in Denver and Atlanta. The magazine runs a fake interview in which she claims she learned economics from talking houseplants; the page is labeled "satire," and the piece is so absurd that reasonable readers would not understand it as reporting actual events.

If Mercado sues the magazine for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the publication alone, which result is most consistent with the governing constitutional rule?

Explanation. When a public figure seeks damages for publication-based IIED, the First Amendment requires more than outrageousness, intent to hurt, and severe distress. The plaintiff must show a false statement of fact made with actual malice. If the publication could not reasonably be understood as describing actual facts, that requirement is not met, so IIED liability is barred.