Cartoon Catalogue Court Case: Larry C. Flynt vs. Jerry Falwell

Section 1: Overview of Flynt vs. Falwell

Jerry Falwell, a Southern Baptist pastor and national minister, sues Larry C. Flynt, publisher and president of Larry Flynt Publication (LFP), for libel damage to his reputation resulting from a certain November 1983 magazine issue containing a parody of Jerry Falwell. In a public court the jury decided in favor of Falwell under the claim of the emotional distress he suffered, but Jerry Flynt appealed because of First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech and Press. Does the First Amendment protect any publications and television (TV) Station from liability of slanderous parody of public or political figures, actors, musician, artist, other movie and TV shows, etc.? The Supreme Court voted unanimously eight to zero in favor of Jerry Flynt for the Larry Farwell’s parody does not contain any intent to do harm toward him.[1]

Section 2: Facts of the Case

            The 1983 November issue involved an ad for Campari  Liqueur of Jerry Falwell’s “first time” (interpret as you want) based on ads from the past which usually consist of many celebrities’ interviews talking about their “first time”. This ad was meant as satire to make him seem hypocritical about his preaching and campaigning against alcohol.[2] Falwell thought it was an act to damage his reputation in the religious world and sued the magazine publication for it.¹ The District Court ruled in favor of Falwell, so Larry Flynt had to award him a one hundred fifty thousand dollar in damages for emotional distress.[3]

Section 3: Frame the Issue

Under the First and Fourteenth Amendment, Flynt appealed to the Supreme Court to make parody a protected speech with some issues.[4]^,[5] Is there a possible line between emotional harm and rhetorical hyperbole? Should the First Amendment protect satire or critical commentary of public figure if it does not contain any assumption of the fact?3 Can we, the people, tell the fact from the fiction we see every day? Whether public figures have the right to recover damages for emotional distress from publication’s offensive parodies?[6]

Section 4: Discuss the Argument

            The First Amendment is limited to not protect any of the following: false statements of fact made with necessary fault, obscene speeches, and fighting word(s) made in the presence of the person to incite violence. Alan L. Isaacman, the defense lawyer for Larry Flynt, argue first of how Jerry Falwell has previously attack Mister Flynt’s, Bob Guccioni’s, and Hugh Hefner’s magazine for their specific image of women even before the parody came out.[7] He often refers to the New York Time vs. Sullivan case where there was a libel suit against New York Times for an ad about a conspiracy against Martin Luther King Junior by Montgomery city commissioner L.B Sullivan, and the limitations of the First Amendment were set.[8] Justice Antonin Scalia stated that The New York Time’s rule cannot guarantees absolute protection against all libel claims for example Miss Wyoming of 1978 against Bob Guccioni’s publication.¹⁰ She won the lawsuit, but Guccioni’s lawyers have commented “as an assault on the First Amendment and said it meant ‘you can’t write fiction anymore’”.[9] Justice Scalia said “The jury find it was done with the intent of creating emotional distress” and Mister Isaacman relied “If you say something critical about another person, it’s going to cause emotional distress. It is just common sense.”[10] In other words anyone in the public can sue for libel action if Mister Falwell is allowed to sue Flynt publication.[11]

            The main argument on Norman Grutman, defense lawyer for Jerry Falwell, side was that public official and figure have the right to recover from damages for emotional distress. Mister Grutman viewed the Campari Liqueur ad as an attempted character assassination. Justice Byon R. White countered it by stating to the fact no one would possibly believed that this ad was true, and he quoted “All you have to say or to win which is plenty, that using opinion or parody to inflict emotional is not protected by the First Amendment,” adding to the topic of political cartoonist. Political cartoonists are meant to poke fun of the dark side of people in a cartoonist as ways for example the work by Thomas Nast.[12] Finally Justice Sandra Day O’Conner said people who write, draw, and speak want freedom to do these things without prejudices. Mister Grutman had no comment after that.[13]

            Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist requested a unanimous decision in favor of Larry Flynt and every Justice agreed. He wrote “Thus while such a bad motive 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 about public figures.”¹³ If Jerry Falwell was a private individual not a public figure he would have prevailed in his lawsuit against Mister Flynt.[14]

Section 5: Reach a Decision

            "The political cartoon is a weapon of attack, of scorn and ridicule and satire; it is least effective when it tries to pat some politician on the back. It is usually as welcome as a bee sting and is always controversial in some quarters." Long, The Political Cartoon: Journalism's Strongest Weapon, The Quill.¹³ Parodies and Political cartoons are controversial. They can affect the outcomes of any debate, memorialize political figures, discredit corrupt people and/or opposing view points, or act as a sense of satire for people to laugh.[15] Parodies are meant to be funny, taking everything you know about the  subject and converting it into something humorous. In truth, when I heard the word “parody,” I did not understand it, I often watch the TV show MAD which specializes in parodies and spoofs. I have compared the parodies to the original and there is no truth between them. People who get upset at parodies just do not have any sense of humor. To be included in a parody is a sense of honor, meaning that you are recognizable among others. Parodies, satire, and spoofs are meant to get a laugh and point out flaws that we face. An up and coming actress Jena Malone said “If we could all just laugh at ourselves in hard times or good times, it would be an incredible world.”
I will add in the picture later for my Blog is have technical issue

---

[1] HUSTLER MAGAZINE v. FALWELL. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 05 November 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1278>.

[2] Larry C. Flynt vs. Falwell. UMKC School of Law. 24 February 1988. 11 November 2013. <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/falwell/sctfalwellvflynt.html>

[3] Ibid of #1

[4] Find Law: HUSTLER MAGAZINE v. FALWELL, 485 [485 U.S. 46]

<http://laws.findlaw.com/us/485/46.html>

[5] Davidson, Lynn. “Larry Flynt Classier Than CNN on Jerry Falwell's Death.” Newsbuster. 17 May 2007. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://newsbusters.org/node/12807#ixzz2kOlRPjI9>

[6] Ibid of #2

[7] “The Argument of Alan L. Isaacman.” The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 11 November 2013 <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1278>.

 

[8] NEW YORK TIMES v. SULLIVAN. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 12 November 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39>.

[9] “Jury Says Penthouse Magazine  Libeled A Former Miss Wyoming.” New York Times. 21 February 1981.  12 November2013 <http://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/21/us/jury-says-penthouse-magazine-libeled-a-former-miss-wyoming.html>

[10] Ibid of #7

[11] Ibid of #2

[12] “The Argument of Norman Roy Grutman.” The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 11 November 2013 <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1278>.

[13] Ibid of #2

[14] Hustler vs. Falwell. “Case Brief.” 12 November 2013 <http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-epstein/privacy/hustler-magazine-v-falwell/>

 

[15] Ibid of #4