Hustler Magazine V Falwell Summary

12. New York Times v Sullivan (502)- First off you need to know that libel is the written defamation of character. A person who believes their name and character have been harmed can sue. In this case, the supreme court declared that freedom of the press takes precedence—at least when the defamed individual is a public official.

i. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defamatory statement made by the defendant is

Why did Sarah Packard kill herself?  In the film, The Hustler, written by Walter Tevis, it’s about a man named Eddie Felson who is a pool hustler. He loses a pool game to Minnesota Fats, which messes up his reputation as a pool player and then falls in love with an alcoholic drinker named Sarah Parkard. This paper should focus on what led to Sarah Parkard to killing herself.

I _________________ attended the 8 hour DUI class conducted at Northern Wyoming Mental Health, on the May 19th, 2016. This document states that I attended the full length of the session and in turn completed my objective to, “build a foundation for my understanding of the substance abuse programs,

The court case of New York Times vs Sullivan was a case that involved public officials and how they were libeled in the press in the year of nineteen sixty four. L.B. Sullivan was one of three elected commissioners of Alabama. The respondent was L. B. Sullivan was a public official from Alabama and brought a lawsuit against an clergymen, a negro and against a petitioner of the New York Times Company. L.B. Sullivan sued all of these people because he felt that he was libeled in a advertisement of the New York Times. The case had to deal with if the constitutional protections of speech and press limit the states power to award damages for the libel action brought by a public official against the critics of his official conduct.

III. Facts: In Hustler v. Falwell a dispute arose when Hustler Magazine, a a magazine that circulates nationwide featured a parody of an advertisement for Campari Liqueur. The inside front cover of the magazine presented interviews with celebrities who described their “first time.” One of the parodies belonged to Jerry Falwell, a nationally acclaimed minister who was featured as describing his “first time” with his mother when they were both intoxicated from drinking Campari Liqueur. While the interviews with the celebrities contained a double sexual reference, it was evident in the end that the ads were referring to the first time the celebrities had tried Campari Liqueur. However, after the magazine was accessible to the public, Jerry Falwell sued Hustler Magazine and its publisher for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. At trial court the judge dismissed the invasion of privacy claim and then sent the case to the jury where they ruled Hustler Magazine on the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and awarded Jerry Falwell $150,000. The case was then taken to the Supreme Court level on appeal by the petitioner, Jerry Falwell.

New Yorker Magazine it states that there must be clear intent to tarnish one’s reputation in order for libel tort law to come into effect. This case was very similar in regards that there was enough evidence that suggest there was intent to hurt the reputation of those mentioned in the articles. Also in the case Anderson v. Liberty Lobby it states the plaintiff must be able to prove that there was in fact damage done to one’s reputation and be able to proof to judges that there was actual malice. As with this case, the court of appeals must take in consideration if the ruling can be made in favor of the plaintiff and that if the summary judgement would go in favor of the plaintiff. The judges want to make sure that they are not wasting time and that there was actual damage done to the plaintiff which can be awarded for punitive

Albert Snyder, Matthew Snyder’s father could see the tops of the signs at the funeral however could not read what they said. He learned about the content of the signs via the news and proceeded to sue the church under the claim that it caused him sever emotional destress. Fred Phelps argued that Westboro Baptist Church was protected by the First Amendment which deals with Free Speech.

An example of a defamation case is Zenaida Gonzalez vs Casey Anthony. During the course of the murder investigation Casey Anthony told police that Caylee had been left with a babysitter named Zenaida Gonzalez, and that the babysitter had kidnapped Caylee. During the trial criminal trial Anthony admitted this claims were false. Gonzalez then sued Anthony for defamation

The Plaintiff, Sullivan, was one of three Commissioners of Montgomery, Alabama who sued the Defendant, the New York Times, for printing and releasing an full page ad about the civil rights movement taking place in the south that defamed Sullivan. The ad was called "Heed Their Rising Voices" and it caused a "wave" of terror that had been directed against those who took place in the civil rights movement in the South. Some of the facts were false. The ad didn't single handily point out Sullivan, he claimed that it referred to him indirectly because he had oversight responsibility of the police. The Defendant stated that they didn't have any reason or proof to say the facts were false. No one put out the extra effort to see if the facts were false

Phelps (2011) in regards to what kind of speech should be protected under the 1st Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. While it is understandable that people are entitled to the freedom of speech, even with a buffer zone enabled, but I found compelling is in the content and impact the case permitted in the aftermath. Freedom of speech? Or fighting words? The United States has reviewed similar cases such as Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988); the exception is the issue of the picket signs held by members of the Westboro Baptist Church, while protesting the funeral of a fallen soldier as a matter of public concern regarding whether or not to cause emotional distress to a grieving family as a matter of a debate, but an 8-1 ruling ensured that even hateful speech was protected. I find it hard to believe that there was little to nothing SCOTUS would list as a constituting a compromise for both sides and how the majority claimed that Snyder’s right to privacy was not infringed upon—with only Justice Antonin Scalia dissenting, claiming that “in order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims.” As such, the Supreme Court’s ruling on this case led to a vulnerability in similar civil liberties: what

The case that I found was Couch V. Wayne Local School District, on April 2011 Maverick couch wore a t-shirt to school saying “Jesus Is Not a Homophobe”. Just like the Jarrar case the principle made him flip his t-shit inside out so that

What they were all responding to was the force of Levitt’s underly- ing belief: that the modern world, despite a surfeit of obfuscation, complication, and downright deceit, is not impenetrable, is not un- knowable, and—if the right questions are asked—is even more in- triguing than we think. All it takes is a new way of looking. - Stephen J. Dubner.

A legal claim based on defamation entitles the victim to recover aginst the person making the defamatory remarks or their emotional damages. On top of that the victim could be able to sue for punishment dammages. Defamation can be proved on a person’s word alone. It is much more successful to have some sort of evidence like a paper, article, an e-mail, etc. In a defamation case damages do not have to be proven during the testomony. The plaintiff dose not have to testify that they were emotionaly destroyed or had to seek profesional help. The defamatory statement dose not have to be published out side of a company or group of people. Internal attacks can also be concidered defamatory. Each repition of the remark can be concidered a new attack. One of the biggest problems in proving defamation is that in some cases a person may have privlage to make the remarks. During a judicial proceding absolute privlage is given. Even if the remark is false the it can not be concidered slanderous in that setting. The defamer can make intentionaly untrue statements free of legal reprehension. A person with even a limited privlage such as an employer may still lose their privlage if the statement is made with malicious intent and reckless disregard.

The second major cas in that helped to clarify the meaning of libel was the court case of Crutis Publishing Co. v Butts. The case helped to clarify the meaning of defamation claims brought by private individuals. The case held that news organizations were protected from liability when printing allegations about public officials, although they may still be sued by public figures if the information they printed was recklessly gathered or if it was left unchecked. Again because it is difficult to prove either of theses, the press ended up with more freedom to print political corruption and scandal.