Hustler Magazine v. Falwel

I have to admit that as soon as I saw this case referenced, I pictured Woody Harrelson's portrayal fighting comically in court (since he was so used to being sued that he seemed to not take it too seriously by the time this case rolled around) in the film The People v. Larry Flynt. If you've never seen it, I would highly recommend it as a good watch for this class; it covers privacy law, First Amendment law, obscenity law, and pretty much everything we're covering in a very entertaining format. Anyway, after learning about privacy law and First Amendment law, it seems odd to me that this case was even brought to trial. I don't think that Jerry Falwell had a leg to stand on. The fake ad that was placed in an article of Hustler that's pictured in our text book demonstrates how the ad was obviously actually a parody of a political figure, which is one of our most protected forms of speech. Falwell is definitely a public figure, which means that the media has every right to make fun of him as long as they aren't stating false facts. They even put a little disclaimer at the bottom of the ad specifically stating that it was a parody. The only reason that Falwell got as far as he did is because of the context of the case, in which a famous Baptist conservative attempted to sue a pornographic magazine. The Hustler was a political underdog, but the law was with them in this case.