Media Law Final - Ch7 - Emotional Distress/physical Harm

Front 1

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, USSC 1988

Back 1

Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler Magazine, a porn mag. Advertising Falwell is the reverend jerry Falwell. There was a popular ad campaign for Campari Liquor – celebrities describe their first time. Hustler took the Campari ad and included a fictitious interview with the Rev. Jerry Falwell-very spoken out against pornography. Falwell never said any of these things. His first time was in an outhouse with his mother. Disclaimer: “Ad parody – not to be taken seriously." Falwell sued for libel, appropriation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. District court rejected libel claim – the parody ad was so outlandish that a reasonable person would not believe it. Appropriation claim also rejected because it wasn’t a real ad. But the jury found that the ad was published with the intentional infliction of emotional distress, awarded Falwell $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. Federal appellate court affirmed the district court decision. USSC, by a unanimous 8-0 vote, overturned the judgment for Falwell. High court said Falwell has to prove actual malice to win an emotional distress case against the media. Same standard as libel—court was concerned that public officials/figures who couldn’t win libel claims (because they couldn’t prove actual malice) would try to win emotional distress claims

Front 2

Why does hustler win and Falwell lose?

Back 2

Court likens the parody ad to political cartoons. “Despite their sometimes caustic nature, from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day, graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a prominent role in public and political debate…” Lincoln’s tall, gangling posture, Teddy Roosevelt’s glasses and teeth, and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s jutting jaw and cigarette holder have been memorialized by political cartoons with an effect that could not have been obtained by the photographer or the portrait artist. From the viewpoint of history it is clear that our political discourse would have been considerably poorer without them…” “The caricature in question here was so ‘outrageous’ as to distinguish from more traditional political cartoons. There is no doubt that the caricature of respondent and his mother published in Hustler is at best a distant cousin of the political cartoons described above, and a rather poor relation at that…” So even this outrageous, hurtful ad parody was found to be protected by the First Amendment.

Front 3

Doe v American Broadcasting Companies (ABC) Inc, New York appellate court 1989

Back 3

Case involves women who were rape victims; they agreed to be interviewed after they were assured that their faces and voices would be altered to protect their privacy and ABC did a bad job at altering voices and shadowing faces. But they were recognized by some people. Appellate court said they could pursue a lawsuit based on negligent infliction of emotional distress(example of negligent infliction case looks like, what’s the duty to the women interviewed, according to interview, and a duty to minimize harm, but by agreeing to hide features and should have foreseen if they didn’t do a good job the women would have a case)

Front 4

Sanders v. Acclaim Entertainment, Colorado appellate court 2002

Back 4

Shooting at Columbine High School, Littleton, Co., involving two high school seniors, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris. They attacked students and teachers with fire arms and pipe bombs, killing 12 students and on teacher. They killed themselves before apprehension. After the shooting, police tried to answer why this happened. Klebold and Harris had watched a movie, “The Basketball Diaries,” and played a number of violent video games. (Mortal Kombat, Doom, Quake and others). Family of the slain teacher, William Sanders, filed suit against the video game and movies producers, arguing that they had a duty to protect people and should have foreseen that their products would lead to injury (suing for wrongful death). Court ruled that the video game and movie producers did not have a duty to protect and were not negligent.