Abstract
In Falwell v. Flynt the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit allowed the Reverend Jerry Falwell to recover damages from Hustler magazine for the emotional distress caused by a satirical advertisement. The court held that the traditional protections accorded to freedom of speech in defamation actions were not applicable to actions for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. In particular, the court ruled that the New York, Times v. Sullivan requirement of actual malice is inapplicable in an action for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, and that the protection accorded statements of opinion under the law of defamation is irrelevant in the context of the emotional distress tort.
Recommended Citation
Kelley, Michael J.
(1987)
"Falwell v. Flynt: An Emerging Threat to Freedomof Speech,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1987:
No.
3, Article 7.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1987/iss3/7