This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: figure and protected them against the emotional distress claim by Fallwell. Issue: Whether or not the First Amendment has certain limits to which a parody can be published even though it can cause intentional infliction of emotional distress. Holding: Supreme court rules in favor of the appeal from Hustler and flynt. Rationale: A public figure cannot file for intentional infliction of emotional distress unless he can prove that it was purposely put in the paper with the knowledge that it was false or not knowing if it was false or true. The article clearly stated that it was not to be taken seriously. The freedoms protected by the first amendment needs to have space in order to be practiced. Result Reversed...
View Full Document
- Spring '11