Supreme Court Hustler Vs. Falwell Essay, Research Paper

Supreme Court Hustler vs. Falwell

The defendant, Larry Flynt, the publisher of an adult magazine, Hustler, had the right to publish anything he desired to even if the material was offending. The constitution does not make it illegal to offend anyone. He was merely practicing his freedom of speech. The obscene content of the cartoon at stake does not fall under any of the descriptions that could make it an exception to limit the freedom of speech as guaranteed under the First Amendment. The used satire is doing its job if it is offensive. Besides, when becoming a public person, one has to face the fact that one’s popularity will make one the subject of gossip and as in this case parodies. However, the Hustler magazine did not intend any actual malice and the cartoon was provided with two disclaimers, which informed the potential reader of the falsehood of the message presented. Furthermore, the State’s interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Thus, although as offending the cartoon might have been, it was not illegal and the jury should side with the petitioner, Larry Flynt.