Why did Jerry Falwell take Larry Flynt to court?

Who authored the US Supreme Court's majority opinion in Hustler Magazine v Falwell?

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 US 46 (1988)Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler Magazine, won the US Supreme Court case.The jury in US District Court made an error in awarding Falwell damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress after finding Flynt and Hustler not guilty of libel. The Supreme Court held that a public figure can't collect monetary damages on the basis intentional infliction of emotional distress alone. The concept of "actual malice," established in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964), is inapplicable to opinion or parody.For more information, see Related Questions and Related Links, below.

In the US Supreme Court case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell what were the circumstances surrounding the case?

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 US 46 (1988)Hustler Magazine v. Falwell established First Amendment protection for publishing subjectively offensive statements about public figures (in the absence of libel), even if the public figure alleges the statements cause emotional distress.The case against Hustler and its publisher, Larry Flynt, arose from a parody of a well-known series of Compari liquor magazine ads that ran in the early 1980s. The real ads featured photographs and interviews with well known celebrities, under the headline "[Celebrity] talks about his first time." "First time" referred to drinking Compari, but was an intentional double-entendre implying a first sexual experience.The parody featured a picture of Reverend Jerry Falwell, a fundamentalist minister and leader of an ultraconservative political group called the Moral Majority under the standard headline, "Jerry Falwell talks about his first time." The layout looked like an actual Compari ad, but featured the phrase "Ad parody. Not to be taken seriously." in small type at the bottom of the page. The table of contents also stated the ad content was fictional. Flynt published the November 1983 piece in a deliberate attempt to "settle a score" with Falwell over his public denunciation of Flynt's private life.The criticism against Falwell was scathing. In the mock interview, "Falwell" claimed to have lost his virginity to his mother in a drunken rendezvous in the family outhouse. It also implied Falwell was a hypocrite who only preached when drunk.Jerry Falwell filed a $45 million civil action against both Hustler Magazine and Larry Flint, asserting charges of invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In order to underwrite legal expenses, the preacher solicited donations from members of the Moral Majority, viewers of his Old Time Gospel Hour, and unnamed private patrons. In all, he raised $717,000.00 from supporters.Larry Flynt retaliated by filing copyright infringement charges against Falwell for circulating copies of the Hustler parody in his mail solicitations (a cheeky move, considering Flynt was guilty of copyright and trademark infringement against Compari), and by running the piece a second time, in the March 1984 issue (on the newsstands in February 1984). The court later dismissed Flynt's case on the grounds that Falwell's use of the parody fell under the Fair Use Clause of the Copyright Act.Falwell's attorney, Norman Roy Grutman, filed a second count of each civil charge with the US District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Flynt hired Allan Isaacman to defend his case.One of the more memorable incidents in the case occurred during the pretrial phase, when Grutman attempted to take a deposition from Flynt while Flynt was serving time in a North Carolina prison on unrelated contempt of court charges.Flynt, who had been shot and was paralyzed from an encounter with a white supremacist gunman in 1975, was wheeled into the room handcuffed to a hospital gurney. Heavily medicated, but not incoherent, Flynt portrayed himself as mentally ill during the taped deposition, responding to Grutman's questions with crazy and inflammatory answers.When asked to state his name for the record, the publisher replied, "Christopher Columbus Cornwallis I.P.Q. Harvey H. Apache Pugh. They call me Larry Flynt. And all those historical figures." When asked to clarify that he was known as Larry Flynt, the man responded, "No. Jesus H. Flynt, Esquire." His responses continued in that vein throughout his testimony. Against his attorney's advice, Flynt proudly claimed responsibility for the satirical ad, freely admitted his intention was to "settle a score," and stated his goal was "to assassinate" Falwell's integrity. Flynt's testimony was damaging to his defense.Allan Isaacman attempted to have the videotape excluded as trial evidence on the grounds that his client was mentally incompetent, on drugs, and suffering from the manic phase of bipolar disorder at the time of deposition. Chief Judge James Turk, who presided over the case, initially agreed to withhold the tape from the jury, but reversed his decision on the day of the trial.Judge Turk dismissed the invasion of privacy charges against Flynt because Falwell was a public figure who was subject to fair comment. He allowed the two counts each of libel and intention infliction of emotional distress to stand and be heard by the jury.Falwell presented himself to the jury as reserved and proper, and expressed anguish at the "besmirching and defiling of my dear mother's memory." Falwell told the jury his father had been an alcoholic, but that he had been a teetotaler since 1952 (more than 30 years). He also described his activities as leader of the Moral Majority, and referred to himself as the second most admired man in America, behind the President [Reagan]. Falwell acknowledged attempting to influence public opinion against pornography, and denouncing Hustler and Flynt personally.Flynt's testimony at trial was far different from the deposition he gave in prison. On direct examination by his own attorney, he told the jury the idea for the Falwell ad originated with a freelance writer, Mike Salisbury, who sold the magazine four or five ideas that day, the Compari ad featuring Falwell among them. Flynt denied that he or his staff participated in creating the ad, and claimed the target was Compari, not Falwell. Falwell's name and photo were used only because Falwell's public image was the opposite of the impression Compari attempted to project. Flynt adamantly denied having any intent to harm Falwell's reputation.Flynt testified:"Well, we wanted to poke fun at Campari for their type advertisement because the innuendos that they had in their ads made you sort of confused as to if the person was talking about their time as far as a sexual encounter or whether they were talking about their first time as far as drinking Campari."Of course, another thing that you had to do is to have a person, you know, that is the complete opposite of what you would expect. If someone such as me might have been in there I don't know how people would have interpreted it. But if somebody like Reverend Falwell is in there it is very obvious that he wouldn't do any of these things; that they are not true; that it's not to be taken seriously."But where the irony and humor is found in this, while it might not be funny to certain people and they may not see the satire in there, they have to consider how different people around the country perceive Falwell to be in terms of his political activities, his beliefs, how he wants people to perceive him as, you know, he would like to be loved, have recognition, acceptance by the people. There's nothing wrong with this, but when it happens, you know, ego comes into play."The best example I can say is when somebody asks me why Reverend Falwell, the only thing I can point out is why did Walter Mondale, during the debates in Louisville, "Do you want Reverend Falwell to be involved in selecting the next Supreme Court?" Now, that was strictly to make a political point, but that means that he, more than any other evangelist is involved in the mainstream of politics. And there is a great deal of people in this country, especially the ones that read Hustler Magazine, that feel that there should be a separation between church and state. So, when something like this appears it will give people a chuckle. They know this was not intended to defame the Reverend Falwell, his mother or any members of his family because no one could take it serious."On December 8, 1984, the jury in the trial of Falwell v. Flynt returned a verdict in favor of Larry Flynt and Hustler on the charges of libel, determining the ad was too outrageous to be believable and had never been presented as fact. They found in favor of Falwell, however, on the separate counts of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and awarded him a total of $200,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.On August 5, 1986, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court verdict and upheld the award for damages. On November 4, 1986, the Fourth Circuit denied Flynt's appeal for rehearing on constitutional grounds.Flynt's attorney petitioned the US Supreme Court and was granted certiorari. Isaacman and Grutman argued before the Court on December 7, 1987. By then, the case had become focused on First Amendment issues, with Isaacman asserting the right of political speech and Grutman arguing the ad was so outrageous it should present an exception to First Amendment protection.The US Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling against Flynt and Hustler, and threw out the jury award, holding that public figures cannot collect damages for "emotional distress" in the absence of a finding of libel with "actual malice," a standard set in New York Times v. Sullivan, (1964).Chief Justice Rehnquist, speaking for the Court, quoted from another First Amendment case, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation,(1978):"[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas."For more information, see Related Questions and Related Links, below.

What were the decisions of the lower courts in the case of Hustler Magazine v Falwell?

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 US 46 (1988)US District CourtJerry Falwell sued Larry Flynt and his publication, Hustler Magazine, for torts of libel and intentional infliction of emotion distress after Hustler published a parody of a Compari (liquor) ad that implied Falwell had incestuous relations with his mother during a drunken encounter in an outhouse.Flynt was found not guilty of libel, but guilty on the charge of intentional infliction of emotional distress.The US District Court court incorrectly allowed a civil jury to award Jerry Falwell a total of $200,000 in compensatory and punitive damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the "actual malice" standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964).US Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitThe Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court decision, then denied Hustler a rehearing challenging the verdict's constitutionality in light of New York Times v. Sullivan.US Supreme CourtThe US Supreme Court held that "intentional infliction of emotional distress" could not stand on its own once the defendant was found not guilty of libel (or any defamation) because it would set a dangerous precedent that would have a chilling effect on the First Amendment exercise of free speech.The Supreme Court reversed the lower court decisions and vacated the jury award.For more information, see Related Questions, below.

What did the court rule in Hustler Magazine v Falwell about collection of damages for words that might cause emotional distress?

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 US 46 (1988)The jury in US District Court made an error in awarding Falwell damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress after finding Flynt and Hustler not guilty of libel. The Supreme Court held that a public figure can't collect monetary damages on the basis intentional infliction of emotional distress alone. The concept of "actual malice," established in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964), is inapplicable to opinion or parody.For more information, see Related Questions and Related Links, below.

What rules of law applied in Hustler Magazine v Falwell?

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 US 46 (1988)Hustler v. Falwell dealt with two important issues: First Amendment protection, and the application of civil statutes for libel. The allegation of libel was tied directly to the Court's decision on the First Amendment constitutional question: "Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection extend to the making of patently offensive statements about public figures, resulting perhaps in their suffering emotional distress?"The civil portion of the case alleged invasion of privacy, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress, resulting from a parody of a Compari liquor ad Hustler published implying Falwell lost his virginity to his mother in a drunken encounter in the family outhouse.Falwell believed the ad was so "outrageous" and offensive, it shouldn't qualify for First Amendment protection. Falwell was a public figure, however, and subject to fair comment in the form of parody. In order to prove libel by the higher standard outlined in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), Falwell claimed the ad was created with "actual malice." In legal terms, "actual malice" refers to publishing statements known to be false, or acting in reckless disregard for the truth. "Actual malice" is not synonymous with "malicious intent," a desire to do harm.The Supreme Court held that the "actual malice" test was not applicable because the US District Court jury had found Hustler, and its publisher Larry Flynt, not guilty of libel. The parody was unbelievable, and was never implied to portray truth. Further, the Court held that "outrageousness" is a subjective concept that can't reasonably used as a legal theory for filing civil suit, and that intentional infliction of emotional distress, by itself, was not sufficient grounds for a monetary award. In light of the jury finding, there was no basis for awarding Falwell damage for "emotional distress."The Court held that the interest in protecting free speech surpassed the state's interest in protecting public figures.Further, the Court held the jury in US District Court made an error in awarding Falwell damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress after finding Flynt and Hustler not guilty of libel. The Supreme Court held that a public figure can't collect monetary damages on the basis intentional infliction of emotional distress alone. The concept of "actual malice," established in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964), is inapplicable to opinion or parody.For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Did Hustler Magazine v. Falwell overturn New York Times v. Sullivan?

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 US 46 (1988)Not at all. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell involved a misapplication of defamation criteria set in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964). The lower courts incorrectly allowed a civil jury to award Jerry Falwell a total of $200,000 in compensatory and punitive damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the "actual malice" test the 1964 case required to establish libel against a public figure. "Actual malice" means a published statement must be made with actual knowledge that a statement is false, or with a reckless disregard for the truth. "Actual malice" is not synonymous with "malicious intent," meaning a desire to cause harm.Falwell's "distress" arose from a parody of a Compari liquor ad the magazine ran (see Related Links to view the ad) in November 1983 and March 1984, implying Falwell lost his virginity to his mother during a drunken encounter in the family outhouse, and that Falwell was a hypocrite who only preached when drunk.Parody is a legally accepted means of public criticism protected under the First Amendment, even if the satire is mean-spirited or offensive, and crosses into the realm of "malicious intent." Falwell argued the ad was so outrageous it shouldn't qualify for First Amendment protection, but the argument actually bolstered Flynt's case: The ad was so preposterous, no reasonable person would believe it. The Court held that "outrageousness" was too subjective to use as a basis of legal theory that could open the door to thousands of law suits, and chill the free expression of opinion protected by the First Amendment.Falwell's other problem lay in the fact that the jury in Hustler's civil trial had found Larry Flynt and the magazine not guilty of libel, because parody qualifies as fair comment, and because the ad was never implied to be true. Without a finding of libel, the question of "actual malice" becomes moot.The Supreme Court held that Flynt could not collect damages based on "emotional distress" in the absence of a tort (civil wrong). In criminal law, this would be analogous to sentencing a defendant after the jury found him or her not guilty.For more information, see Related Questions and Related Links, below.

What were the constitutional issues in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell 1988?

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 US 46 (1988)The question before the Court was: "Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection extend to the making of patently offensive statements about public figures, resulting perhaps in their suffering emotional distress?"Hustler v. Falwell was both a First Amendment challenge and a civil case alleging invasion of privacy, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress, after Hustler ran a parody of a Compari liquor ad implying Falwell lost his virginity to his mother in a drunken encounter in the family outhouse.Falwell believed the ad was so "outrageous" and offensive, it shouldn't qualify for First Amendment protection. Falwell was a public figure, however, and subject to fair comment in the form of parody. In order to prove libel by the higher standard outlined in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), Falwell claimed the ad was created with "actual malice." In legal terms, "actual malice" refers to publishing statements known to be false, or acting in reckless disregard for the truth. "Actual malice" is not synonymous with "malicious intent," a desire to do harm.The Supreme Court held that the "actual malice" test was not applicable because the US District Court jury had found Hustler, and its publisher Larry Flynt, not guilty of libel. The parody was unbelievable, and was never implied to portray truth. Further, the Court held that "outrageousness" is a subjective concept that can't reasonably used as a legal theory for filing civil suit, and that intentional infliction of emotional distress, by itself, was not sufficient grounds for a monetary award. In light of the jury finding, there was no basis for awarding Falwell damage for "emotional distress."The Court held that the interest in protecting free speech surpassed the state's interest in protecting public figures.For more information, see Related Questions and Related Links, below.

What movie and television projects has Roland Gomez been in?

Roland Gomez has: Played Limo Driver in "The Net" in 1995. Played Man Outside Supreme Court in "The People vs. Larry Flynt" in 1996. Played Guest at Security Gate in "National Treasure" in 2004. Played Luis in "Rocket Science" in 2007. Performed in "Piyalir Password" in 2009.

What was the significance of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell?

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 US 46 (1988)Hustler Magazine v. Falwell established First Amendment protection for publishing "outrageous" or offensive statements about public figures, even if the public figure alleges the statements cause emotional distress, unless the statements are shown to be libel. The Court held that the interest in protecting free speech surpassed the interest in protecting public figures' emotions and reputations.It also clarified an erroneous interpretation of New York Times v. Sullivan, (1964), a case that made it more difficult for public figures to sue for libel by requiring false statements be published with "actual malice." In legal terms, "actual malice" refers to making statements known to be false, or acting in reckless disregard for the truth. "Actual malice" is not synonymous with "malicious intent," a desire to do harm.The Supreme Court held that the "actual malice" test was not applicable because the US District Court jury had found Hustler, and its publisher Larry Flynt, not guilty of libel. Intentional infliction of emotional distress was not sufficient, by itself, to qualify for damages. The parody was simply too "outrageous" to be believed, and was never implied to portray truth. In light of the jury finding, the charge of "actual malice" became moot and was not a valid basis for awarding monetary damages.For more information, see Related Questions and Related Links, below.

How many times did judge judy marry her current husband?

Yes, she has a husband named Jerry Sheindlin. She's married to former People's Court judge Jerry Scheindlin. Prior to his time on the People's Court bench, Gerald Sheindlin served as a US Administrative Judge at the Social Security Administration in OH and NYC: from 1983 he served as a Criminal Court Judge, and from 1986 as an Acting Supreme Court Judge in Bronx, NY until May 1999; he served on the "People's Court" bench from 1999 to 2001. In addition to being a judge, he also wrote a book and coauthored another. See the links below for some interesting information on some of the cases that came before him in court and the books he authored.

Did judge judy and husband jerry have children together?

Now there's a picture. But no, Judge Judy (Judith Scheindlin) is married to Jerry Scheindlin, also a judge, who served on the New York Supreme Court and appeared as the judge on The People's Court for two years.

What are the release dates for Tom and Jerry Kids Show - 1990 Order in the Volleyball Court King Wild Mouse - 10th Wonder of the World Space Chase?

Tom and Jerry Kids Show - 1990 Order in the Volleyball Court King Wild Mouse - 10th Wonder of the World Space Chase was released on: USA: 18 September 1993