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.