1-2 Page Case Brief Rewrite

I need you to rewrite the case brief below in 1-2( 2 page if needed).

There must be no grammatical errors.

Look up the case Hustler Magazine vs Falwell to get a better understanding of what case if about.

MLA format and please follow the format sample as given below

Facts: On the cover of the November 1983 issue of the Hustler Magazine, it showed a “parody” of an advertisement for Campari Liqueur that contained the name and picture of respondent, Jerry Falwell, and was entitled “Jerry Falwell talks about his first time.” Now Jerry Falwell is a nationally known minister and is known for commentating on politics and public affairs. The ad is about the first time he sampled Campari, but does play on the sexual innuendo of “first times.” The ad did have, however, a disclaimer at the bottom of the page that stated “ad parody—not to be taken seriously.” And in the table of contents, the title of the article was called “Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody.” Letting the readers know that the ad isn’t actually what it sounds like. They also created a caricature about Falwell and his mother, which is part of the politics world.

Issue: the issue is whether the ad’s publication was sufficiently “outrageous” to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Holding: Upheld yes by Supreme Court unanimous vote of 8-0

And to this I say it was not. For three reasons:

• There was a disclaimer saying that the ad was a parody and to not be taken seriously and in the table of contents, the title for the article said it was fiction and a personality parody
• The 1^st Amendment doesn’t recognize anything such as a “false” idea.
• The ad parody is in no way “outrageous” and even if it was that does not make it right(change word?) to bring about a lawsuit about Hustler Magazine.

Argument 1: There was a disclaimer at the bottom of the article and the title in the table of contents even said that article was a parody and to not be taken seriously. With this in mind, there is no reason that Hustler Magazine should have to pay for damages to Jerry Falwell. The ad is does not describe actual facts about the respondent. The ad is just an opinion and is therefore protected by the First Amendment. All over the internet, magazines, any kind of media source there are offensive things being shown. If every time someone got offended and brought up a lawsuit against that person or company, there would be no freedom of speech anymore. Everyone would be too scared to say anything in case they might accidently offend someone. The reason for the first Amendment is so no one has to be scared of what they can say. People can say whatever they want to and not be scared to get charged with something. What Hustler Magazine wrote was not false either; it was a play on words, which isn’t lying. They even made sure to put a disclaimer in the table of contents and on the article page itself to say that the article is fiction and to not be taken seriously.

Argument 2: The 1^st Amendment does not recognize any such thing as a “false” idea. However, nothing put into the ad was false, but just a play on words. One of the rights of an American citizen is to criticize public men and measures. In NY Times Co. vs. Sullivan, the court ruled that a public figure may hold a speaker liable for the damage to reputation caused by publication of a defamatory falsehood BUT ONLY IF THE STATEMENT WAS MADE “WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS FALSE OR WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD OF WHETHER IT WAS FALSE OR NOT.” At the heart of the 1^st Amendment is the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. Hustler Magazine did not write about anything false in their ad about Jerry Falwell. All they did in their ad was put a play on words. The ad could be interpreted anyway, but Jerry Falwell interpreted it as something offensive to him. The point of the play on words is to have people interpret it. Reading the ad, people will realize that it isn’t really about Jerry Falwell’s “first time.”

Argument 3: the definition of outrageous is “grossly offensive” “beyond the bounds of good taste” (unquote).” Just because someone says something offensive to someone else does not mean that they’re violating the law. Violating the law would not be allowing that person to express their own opinions no matter how different they are from the other persons. Just because Hustler Magazine used the term “first times” to describe the article, it was more to make people want to read it then to offend Jerry Falwell. When people actually read the article, they’ll realize that “the first time” that they are actually talking about is the first time Falwell sampled Campari.

People create political ads about politicians that include caricatures all the time and they are not labeled as offensive and have lawsuits brought against them. The point of a caricature is to create a silly picture. Originally, caricatures were meant to have an offensive side to them, but in this case it was meant as a silly picture. If the caricatures of politicians and even the president were thought of as offensive, they would have to be stopped, too. But since they do not find it offensive, unlike Jerry Falwell, they leave them up. “Graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a prominent role in public and political debate.” Since Falwell is known for commentating on politics and public affairs, and caricatures are a big part of that world, it makes sense as to why Hustler Magazine created a caricature about him and his mother when he first tried Campari.

Conclusion: Even if people thought that the ad was about Jerry Falwell and “his first time,” 1. Once they read it, they would have realized that it wasn’t about that at all. It was about the first time he sampled Campari 2. They would have seen the disclaimer at the bottom of the page stating that the ad was a parody and to not be taken seriously 3. They also had in the table of contents saying that the ad was fictional.

Comment : The first Amendment doesn’t recognize false statements either. However, the statement about Jerry Falwell’s “first time” was not false. Only a play on words. Which are protected by the 1^st Amendment since the statements are not false.The term “outrageous” cannot be used to describe this situation because it isn’t outrageous. The only person the ad is offending is Jerry Farwell. No one else is being offended by it. Therefore, taking offense to something is subjective.