Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988) saw the Supreme Court rule that parodies of public figures, even if offensive or demeaning, are protected by the 1st Amendment. The November 1983 issue of pornographic magazine Hustler Magazine ran a parody ad targeting Christian evangelist Jerry Falwell. The ad, a parody of Campari liquor ads that featured brief, contrived interviews wth celebrities that began with asking them about their first time, which in this case was meant to refer to the first time they'd drank Campari. The Hustler parody, written by Terry Abrahamson and drawn by Mike Salisbury, included a headshot photo of Falwell and the transcript of a spoof interview where Falwell misinterprets the question about his first time and goes into a story about how he lost his virginity to his mother in the family outhouse while they were drunk on Campari. He goes on to say his mother looked "better than a Baptist whore with a $100 donation" and he had sex with her because "she showed all the other guys in town a good time." When asked if he'd ever done it again, Falwell says "Sure, but not in the outhouse. There was too much shit and flies in there" and "I always drink Campari before heading out to the pulpit. You think I could lay down all that bullshit sober?"
The ad included a disclaimer that it was fiction and not intended to be taken seriously, however Falwell was not laughing as he promptly filed a libel suit against Hustler and its distribution company. A jury denied the libel claim as none of the parody ad reflected actual events from his life. However, they did agree with his emotional distress claim and awarded him $150,000 in damages. Hustler founder Larry Flynt appealed, but the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict on the grounds of the actual malice standard established in New York Times Company v. Sullivan. The 4th Circuit Court refused to hear the case again en banc and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.The Court ruled unanimously in favor of Hustler Magazine. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the case. He recognized the 1st Amendment's importance in protecting free discussion of ideas and that inevitably, a free society would see criticism or satire of public figures. New York Times v. Sullivan had found that ridicule of public figures was protected speech unless actual malice was intended, even if the claims made about them were untrue. Rehnquist pointed out 19th century political cartoonist Thomas Nast and his parody cartoons of Tammany Hall boss Boss Tweed; political discourse, he said, would be much poorer without such cartoons. As "outrageous" as the Hustler parody ad was, it did not promote actual malice against Falwell nor did it count as obscenity. Nor did the parody ad suggest its claims about Falwell were true. The Court thus overruled the 4th Circuit.
>>18279710>>18279705Hustler comes off as quaint in the age of OnlyFans. We've since fashioned forms of degeneracy even the most degenerate boomers couldn't conceive of.
>>18279705>written by Terry AbrahamsonEarly life section check please?
Falwell was 100% in the right and this ruling was a milestone towards creating tranny New Sodom
>>18279705Hustler did nothing wrong. Falwell was a retard.
>>18279786>>18280015The duality of man
Larry Flynt, the magazine's publisher, later wrote an article for the Los Angeles Times detailing his relationship with Falwell, wherein he shockingly revealed that they eventually became friends:>In the years that followed and up until his death, he’d come to see me every time he was in California. We’d have interesting philosophical conversations. We’d exchange personal Christmas cards. He’d show me pictures of his grandchildren.>My mother always told me that no matter how repugnant you find a person, when you meet them face to face you will always find something about them to like. The more I got to know Falwell, the more I began to see that his public portrayals were caricatures of himself. There was a dichotomy between the real Falwell and the one he showed the public.https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-may-20-op-flynt20-story.htmlThis case was also portrayed in the 1996 film The People vs. Larry Flynt.
>>18280944>There was a dichotomy between the real Falwell and the one he showed the public.That doesn’t sound true at all, Flynt just didn’t understand the public Falwell because he didn’t understand Christianity
>>18279786Cry about it snowflake
>>18279786>Tttttttrrrrrrrrrrannies!!!!On the fucking brain.
>>18282145>>18282233
>>18280944This Kike was the pioneer who allowed illegal porno to become legalporno.
>>18280952>That doesn’t sound true at all, Flynt just didn’t understand the public Falwell because he didn’t understand Christianityhe was Southern good ol' boy white trash so he very much did understand Falwell's brand of Christianity, he grew up surrounded by it after all
>>18282350This board is full of atheists claiming to be apostates who nevertheless ask questions like “why did God sacrifice Himself to Himself”
>>18279705Im not even going to read that because i have no interest about the supreme circus or what it does or what it says i'll simply disregard it and do whatever i see fit.
>>18282310Hows the weather in Jakarta?
