Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)
Relevant Case Facts:
The March 1984 issue of Hustler printed a parody of an advertisement for Campari Liqueur.
While the Campari ads focused on the first time people drank the Liqueur, the parody portrayed
Jerry Falwell as drunk, immoral, and hypocritical. At the bottom of the ad the following words
appeared in small print: “Ad parody – not to be taken seriously.” Falwell sued the magazine and
its published for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The
jury found in favor of the magazine of the libel charge, but awarded Falwell $150,000 on the
claim that the published intentionally inflicted emotional distress.
Legal Question: May a person bring a lawsuit for libel and infliction of emotional distress for a
parody that did not purport to be factually accurate?
Reasoning:
Roth v. U.S. (1957)
Relevant Case Facts:
The U.S. obtained a 26 count indictment against Roth who sold materials, in violation of a
federal obscenity law, that were allegedly obscene, indecent, and filthy. At the trial the judge
instructed the jury to determine the impact of material based on the average person in the
community. Roth was found guilty on four counts and he was punished to five years in prison
and a $5000 fine.
Legal Question: Does the federal obscenity statute violate the First Amendment?
Reasoning:
Concurring in result (Warren):
Concurring in part and dissenting in part (Harlan):
Dissenting (Douglas and Black):
Miller v. California (1973)
Relevant Case Facts:
Miller conducted a mass mail campaign of pamphlets to drum up sales for his books; the
pamphlets contained some adult material. Because it was a mass mailing, some of the pamphlets
ended up in the hands of people who did want them. Miller was arrested when a manager of a
restaurant and his mother opened one of the envelopes and complained to the police.
Legal Question: Does a person have the right to send adult material through the mail?
Reasoning:
Dissenting (Douglas):
Dissenting (Brennan):
New York v. Ferber (1982)
Relevant Case Facts:
New York and 19 other states prohibited the dissemination of material depicting children (under
16) engaged in sexual conduct regardless of whether the material is obscene. Ferber was charged
with selling two movies to undercover police officers which were devoted almost exclusively to
depicting two young boys masturbating. He argued the law works serious and substantial
violation of the First Amendment by measures and means unnecessary to accomplish its
legislative objectives.
Legal Question: May a state regulate and prohibit material deemed as child pornography?
Reasoning:
Concurring (Brennan and Marshall):
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association
564 U.S. ___ (2011)
Relevant Case Facts:
In 2005 the California Assembly passed bill 1179, prohibiting the sale of violent video games to
minors and requiring such games to be appropriately labeled. Borrowing directly from obscenity
precedents, the statute defined violent video games as those games in which “the range of
options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an
image of a human being, if those acts are depicted in a manner that a reasonable person,
considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors,
that is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for
minors, and that causes the game, as a whole to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value for minors.” The Entertainment Merchants Association filed suit claiming the bill
violated the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment.
Issue: May a state, consistent with the First Amendment, prohibit the sale of violent video games
to minors and to require that such video games be appropriately labeled?
Reasoning:
Alito and Roberts Concurring in Judgement: