How does the decision of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell affect us today?

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 US 46 (1988)

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell established First Amendment protection for publishing offensive statements about public figures, even if the public figure alleges the statements cause emotional distress. The Court held that the interest in protecting free speech surpassed the state's interest in protecting public figures.

One important affect of the decision is that it allows political pundits and entertainment media icons to make patently outrageous and untrue statements about public figures with impunity. For example, Rush Limbaugh can make false statements about President Obama and other Democrats while hiding behind the expanded First Amendment protection allowed by this case (the same would be true of a progressive pundit lying about Republicans). While Limbaugh and similar media personalities publicly acknowledge being entertainment sources, many of their listeners consider them valid news sources.

Many people are undiscriminating in their beliefs, and accept what they hear without attempting to verify the information, resulting in poor decision-making and decreased critical thinking skills. It also allows special interest group to promote their agendas, often to the detriment of those who support them.

The decision in Hustler v. Falwell, (1984) also closed the door on civil suits brought by public figures based solely on intentional infliction of emotional distress, which could potentially undermine the democratic process by chilling the free expression of thoughts and opinions.

For more information, see Related Question and Related Links, below.