Can a public figure successfully sue for emotional distress over a parody advertisement without proving actual malice or false statements of fact?

Hustler Magazine published a parody advertisement featuring Jerry Falwell, a prominent minister and political commentator. The ad, titled "Jerry Falwell talks about his first time," depicted a fictional, drunken, incestuous encounter between Falwell and his mother in an outhouse. The advertisement included a disclaimer stating it was not to be taken seriously. Falwell subsequently filed a lawsuit against Hustler Magazine, Larry Flynt (the publisher), and Flynt Distributing Co., alleging libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The case went to trial, where a jury found in favor of the defendants on the libel claim. However, the jury awarded Falwell $100,000 in compensatory damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Additionally, the jury imposed punitive damages of $50,000 each against Hustler Magazine and Larry Flynt for the same claim.

Falwell initiated a diversity action against the defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The District Court directed a verdict against Falwell on the privacy claim. A jury trial ensued, resulting in a verdict for the defendants on the libel claim but in favor of Falwell on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The defendants subsequently filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the District Court denied.

The defendants then appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment against the defendants. Following this affirmation, the defendants sought review by the Supreme Court. Due to the significance of the constitutional issues at stake, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case.

(Rehnquist, C.J.)

No. Public figures cannot successfully sue for emotional distress over a parody advertisement without proving actual malice or false statements of fact. The First Amendment protects even offensive and outrageous speech about public figures, provided it cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts. This protection is essential to give adequate "breathing space" to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. The state's interest in shielding public figures from emotional distress is insufficient to deny constitutional protection to speech that is patently offensive and intended to inflict emotional injury. To prevail in such cases, public figures must demonstrate that the publication contains false statements of fact made with "actual malice" - knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. This stringent standard applies equally to claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress as it does to defamation claims involving public figures. The First Amendment's safeguards cannot be circumvented merely by labeling speech as emotionally distressing rather than defamatory. Parody and satire, even when vulgar or outrageous, play a vital role in public discourse and political criticism. Allowing recovery for emotional distress without proof of false factual statements made with actual malice would impermissibly chill protected speech and undermine the robust debate on public issues that the First Amendment is designed to foster. This principle extends beyond traditional news media to encompass various forms of artistic and political expression, including advertisements and caricatures.

Concurrence (White, J.) The case can be decided solely on First Amendment grounds, without relying on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The jury's finding that the ad contained no assertion of fact is sufficient to protect the speech in question. Expanding the New York Times standard is unnecessary and potentially problematic for future cases involving emotional distress claims.