But this does not mean that a literal application of the actual malice rule is appropriate in the context of an emotional distress claim. The court agreed that because respondent is concededly a public figure, petitioners are “entitled to the same level of first amendment protection in the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress that they received in claim for libel.” 797 F. 254 (1964), must be met before respondent can recover for emotional distress. The court rejected petitioners’ argument that the “actual malice” standard of New York Times Co. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment against petitioners. Petitioners’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied. The jury ruled for respondent on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, however, and stated that he should be awarded $100,000 in compensatory damages, as well as $50,000 each in punitive damages from petitioners. The jury then found against respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the ad parody could not “reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about or actual events in which participated.” App. At the close of the evidence, the District Court granted a directed verdict for petitioners on the invasion of privacy claim. Respondent stated in his complaint that publication of the ad parody in Hustler entitled *49 him to recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In small print at the bottom of the page, the ad contains the disclaimer, “ad parody - not to be taken seriously.” The magazine’s table of contents also lists the ad as “Fiction Ad and Personality Parody.”Soon after the November issue of Hustler became available to the public, respondent brought this diversity action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia against Hustler Magazine, Inc., Larry C. The Hustler parody portrays respondent and his mother as drunk and immoral, and suggests that respondent is a hypocrite who preaches only when he is drunk. We now consider whether this award is consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.The inside front cover of the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a “parody” of an advertisement for Campari Liqueur that contained the name and picture of respondent and was entitled “Jerry Falwell talks about his first time.” This parody was modeled after actual Campari ads that included interviews with various celebrities about their “first times.” Although it was apparent by the end of each interview that this meant the first time they sampled Campari, the ads clearly played on the sexual double entendre of the general subject of “first times.” Copying the form and layout of these Campari ads, Hustler’s editors chose respondent as the featured celebrity and drafted an alleged “interview” with him in which he states that his “first time” was during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The jury found for petitioners on the defamation claim, but found for respondent on the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and awarded damages. The District Court directed a verdict against respondent on the privacy claim, and submitted the other two claims to a jury. Respondent Jerry Falwell, a nationally known minister who has been active as a commentator on politics and public affairs, sued petitioner and its publisher, petitioner Larry Flynt, to recover damages for invasion of *48 privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.Petitioner Hustler Magazine, Inc., is a magazine of nationwide circulation. Norman Roy Grutman argued the cause for respondent. Isaacman argued the cause for petitioners. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT *47 Alan L.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |