That Time a Porn Magazine Defeated an Evangelist | Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 май 2024
- In episode 63 of Supreme Court Briefs, a pornographic magazine makes a parody ad about a famous televangelist, so he sues them for $100 million.
Produced by Matt Beat. All images/video by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music by Electric Needle Room (Mr. Beat's band) Download the song here for free: electricneedleroom.bandcamp.c...
#supremecourt #supremecourtbriefs #apgov
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-1278
Additional sources/further reading/watching:
www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...
• Larry Flynt on Jerry F...
www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/...
www.rollingstone.com/culture/...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler...
globalfreedomofexpression.col...
law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects...
www.dailymotion.com/video/x2w...
Cameo, yo: www.cameo.com/iammrbeat?qid=1...
Snail mail Mr. Beat: PO Box 1982 Lawrence, KS 66044
Donate to Mr. Beat for great perks on Patreon: / iammrbeat
Buy Mr. Beat's book, The Ultimate American Presidential Election Book: Every Presidential Election in American History (1788-2016) amzn.to/3fdakiZ
Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: www.paypal.me/mrbeat
Buy Mr. Beat T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc.: sfsf.shop/support-mrbeat/
More merch: www.bonfire.com/store/mr-beat/
Reddit: / mrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedleroom.net/
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Mr. Beat on Facebook: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat on Instagram: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's Discord server: / discord
Mr. Beat's Tiktok: www.tiktok.com/@iammrbeat?lan...
Mr. Beat favorites:
POP! Icons: George Washington go.magik.ly/ml/11jrb/
Useful Charts: usefulcharts.com/?aff=12
Recommended books:
Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessing go.magik.ly/ml/11jul/
Truman by David McCullough go.magik.ly/ml/11jwc/
Studio equipment:
Canon EOS M50 Camera EF-M 15-45mm Lens amzn.to/3dcNPen
Samtian LED Video Light Kit amzn.to/3llDwHO
TroyStudio Acoustic Panel amzn.to/33CkqHn
Blue Snowball iCE USB Mic amzn.to/2GseOHa
I use MagicLinks for all my ready-to-shop product links. Check it out here:
www.magiclinks.com/rewards/re...
FTC Disclosure: This post or video contains affiliate links, which means I may receive a commission for purchases made through my links.
Hustler Magazine, a pornographic magazine known also for crude humor and political satire, publishes a parody ad that targets a popular Christian fundamentalist televangelist and conservative political commentator named Jerry Falwell. Uh yeah, here is the ad, which I censored a bit. It was right inside the front cover of the issue. It basically mimicked the advertising campaigns of Campari, an Italian alcoholic beverage that featured interviews with random celebrities that always started with a question about their “first time.” Well in this parody ad, Jerry Falwell shares details about him...um... having sexual relations with his mother. Now, the ad did carry a small disclaimer at the bottom of the page that said “ad parody - not to be taken seriously", and the magazine's table of contents also listed the ad as: "Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody." Regardless, after Falwell found out about it, he sued Larry Flynt, the publisher of the magazine, as well as Flynt’s distribution company, for libel, invasion of privacy, and “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Libel is a written form of defamation. Oh you don’t know what defamation is? Defamation means ruining someone’s good reputation. Basically, Falwell seemed worried that people might think this parody ad WAS TRUE.
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell was a landmark Supreme Court case that made it easier to make fun of celebrities. It represented two wildly different perspectives. On one end was Flynt, representing the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s and pushing of boundaries with free speech, and on the other end was Falwell, representing a culturally conversative and religious backlash to that. Their feud was later dramatized by the film The People vs. Larry Flynt, but interestingly, right after this case Larry and Jerry put aside their differences and regularly met up to talk philosophy, later becoming good friends. In fact, they appeared on TV together on several occasions. Falwell died in 2007 and Flynt died earlier this year.
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
Honestly this is really interesting in context with things like The Onion, and how they always make things up about real people and brands
Definitely! Although look at how many people share their stuff thinking it's real!
Yeah but the onion is a joke, they don't hide that it's all made up. I think the people who intentionally lie to people are the real issue there
That’s really cool that they made up and became good friends afterwards. Thats not an ending that I would have expected
Agreed!
I'd like to know where this rates in the Amicable Supreme Court Aftermath stakes, for sure.
Makes sense. They have similar views about women, just expressed in different ways.
Reminds me of how in Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson became good friends with the guy that prosecuted him.
@@iammrbeat what happened to the ninth justice 5:47
"The First Amendment doesn't protect the speech you like, it protects the speech you don't"
-Larry Flynt
Here's a suggestion: "When Can A Police Officer Use Deadly Force? Tennessee v. Garner."
I second that motion sir
I third that motion, sir
That would be great, please do it
I did do Graham v. Connor if you want to check that one out
I have seen it and used it in my Criminal Justice courses in Ca. I think it’s important to see and show how an unarmed juvenile, climbing over a fence, running away from police can be shot and killed.
While the court feels there is justification, I don’t and discussed along with Connor, it becomes very clear the use of force against anyone, is low and has been miss understood and abused by law enforcement.
All this from a retired police sergeant, with common sense.
Love the videos, keep up the GREAT WORK
Peace, I’m out
“If you gave Falwell an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox.” Christopher Hitchens.
He had so many great one-liners. Hitchens, not Falwell. :)
@@iammrbeat glad to know you’re a fan!
I'm unsure if I understand the meaning of the one-liner, could you explain?
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 one liners are jokes or generally amusing/funny statements made in a single sentence.
Its both the joke and the punchline. Hence it is only "one line"
@@jewels3846 I don't get the attempted humor of it.
Ironically, both parties had to spend a lot of money for this, and probably spent more than the amounts involved. I'd still like to see Conn. vs. Teal.
Good point to bring up, and that case is still on my list. Thanks for reminding me!
Falwell wanted 45 million because he needed more money ¢$$$$$🤪😀
Whenever a SCOTUS landmark case begins with a "pornographic magazine creating political satire" you know it's gonna be a wild ride
You should do a video on Atkins v. Virginia. It’s a case where the Supreme Court stated those who are mentally disabled could not be executed. It’s an very interesting case we learned about in our Supreme Court course.
I was unfamiliar with that one. Thanks for brining it to my attention.
@@iammrbeat it seems that Missouri didn't know about that case
ruclips.net/video/tK-wSUWrxCQ/видео.html
Honestly the best thing to come from this is now you can cite Hustler Magazine in legal citations.
If Falwell had just ignored the parody ad it would have faded into obscurity. But because he brought legal action against Flynt, the parody ad is now a part of American history. Maybe we should rename the "Streisand Effect" to the "Falwell Effect"
Don't let this distract you from the fact that Mr. Beat in a suit looks like Woodrow Wilson.
WILSOOONNNNNN !!!!!!!
Nooooooooooooooo
As someone who is a public figure in my local area who has had some incredibly vitriolic false statements made about me on many occasions, I fully support the decision of the Supreme Court in this case. The right of free speech does not end where my feelings begin. And, if you can't handle nasty stuff said about you, the spotlight isn't for you.
I'm also a public figure!
I'm a Progressive, you?
@@deiansalazar140 Libertarian. I mainly fight against corrupt local politicians who keep raising taxes and criminalization homelessness. Wanting to treat people with respect and dignity has gotten a lot of people on both the left and right mad at me.
@@thejimmydanly I don't mind high taxes if they are being put to the right use. But criminalizing homelessness is plainly cruel. It costs less to house someone than to jail someone.
You should do a brief about Whren v US - allows cops to follow people until they commit a traffic violation (forgetting to use their signal, etc) and then pull them over and search their car
I haven't head of that case before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Yay, a new Episode of Suupreeeme Court Brieeefs!
I wish more folks like you liked them. The series doesn't do well
This is probably my favorite series on your channel. Thank you for the great videos, Mr. Beat!
Well thank YOU. That means a lot.🙂
I know supreme court briefs don't bring in the views, but they are very informative and entertaining, please never stop :)
Based on this ruling, how do you think the voting machine companies’ lawsuits against spreaders of election disinformation would go? This is very relevant today.
They'll have to show malice done by the spreaders
I think there is a clear case for malice in this matter.
They have to show damages which are pretty apparent.
@@KMcNally117 Yep, you nailed it. It will be difficult to prove malice, but it's certainly possible.
The thing is... Is being a voting machine company enuf to qualify them as a "public figure", bcuz honestly... I dont think so. They only became public figures as a result of the defamation lobbied against them on national level platforms by existing public figures. If a public figure talking about you often is enuf to qualify you as a public figure; then in theory a public figure can target any non-public figure with all sorts of defamation even intentionally causing them a loss of their job, but as long as they cant prove malice then the person is immune bcuz they made the other party a public figure... by defaming them.
Defamation of non-public figures holds entirely different standards of evidence specifically bcuz such can be used so easily against them in a very destructive way and most of them dont have the means to defend against such defamation, eg in courts or in responding back on their own national level platform.
Hey Mr. Beat. I’m currently a freshman at the University of Missouri studying to be a history teacher. I‘ve really liked your videos but I would like to see a different kind of video where you count down the 10 most important events/periods in American history to teach. I think this is something important to think about as a lot of history teachers aren’t able to fit all the content in a one year class and there are definitely some things I feel that students really need to learn about.
First of all, that is awesome, and I wish you luck in school. Being a history teacher is one of the greatest jobs in the world. You're absolutely going to love it. Second, what a great suggestion! Adding it to my list right now. :)
I would 1000% support a video like this. There’s so much that goes missing. I feel like a lot of it would be atrocities committed by the US government though so it might get a tad sad, but the truth is always worth fighting for and speaking.
Thank You Mr. Beat!!
I've been excited for this one 😀
Thanks for suggesting it!
@@iammrbeat You did a fantastic job on the subject matter, Mom and I really enjoyed it!
Hello Patron
I never knew there was a court ruling on this particular type of slanderous speech. Great video as always!
Thank you buddy!
@@iammrbeat Of course!
The fact they ended up friends after all that should be a lesson to all of us in our current political climate
If you are in Law School, these vids are a goldmine.
I am hoping they have been helpful for law students!
Cool that they became buddies after
Definitely!
I think this the best Mr. Beat video I've seen in a while. And I've watched quite a few in my day I tells ya!
Great stuff! thank you.
Love this series!! Keep it up mr beat!!!
I wish more folks watched it. This video is performing horribly. But thank you!
This series is amazing. It's the best source material for pretending to be a lawyer.
Always grand to see another Supreme court video!
Glad you dig the series, but sadly the series does not do that well.
@@iammrbeat It's a real shame, too. Some of the best supreme court case covers on YT, at least for a brief yet reasonable explanation.
Hopefully, they gain more steam.
That was a damn fine cup o' coffee. Great work, Beat!
Thank you!
I wanted to tell you I'm a big fan of your work. Thank you very much for your interesting and useful content. Saludos desde México.
Thank you so much!
I actually learned about this case in my ethics, law, and media class last semester!
I think the funniest thing about this case is that in the aftermath Flynt got a hustler subscription for all 535 congressional offices (which is still active to this day).
Great video as always
Thank you!
Well, I started watching this series from the beginning last Friday (found via the Jack Rackam John Marshall video), and here we are. Shame this series doesn't do as well for you, this was my first experience with your channel and I haven't watched any of your other videos yet. Please do continue to make these briefs!
See I always wondered why defamation wasn’t as big of a deal in the us as it is in a country like the uk, I see now that because of this precedent it’s very hard to silence critics and via claims of defamation as you need to both prove a lot more and it involves more stuff other than just merely “making someone look bad”
Great video!
I'm still waiting for a video by you about Snyder v. Phelps
It's coming! Maybe even my next one for this series tbh
This is you best serise keep em coming
But hardly anyone watches it. I appreciate the kind words, but I'm afraid I might be done making these for awhile.
@@iammrbeat :( I guess you can only make so many
This my favorite series from any channel
SUPREME COURT BRIEFS IS BACK BABY WWWOOOOAAAAHHHH!!!
I wish more folks shared your enthusiasm for this series. 😄
@@iammrbeat this is by far my favorite "educational series" on here. I learn so much AND IT'S FUN! YOU JUST CANT LOSE WITH IT!
I live in Cary NC and in class today and yesterday we watch you Supreme Court briefs series for free speech and religion
That's awesome! Wait which one was it?
@@iammrbeat a lot of them but I will name a few 1. Brandenburg vs Ohio, Morse vs Fredrick and westside vs mergens
Mr. Beat, you might want to do premiers about 2 or 3 hours later than you do now, schools in the east get out a bit before 3:00 and I always miss your premiers because I'm in school.
Ok. Next week I shall wait until 3pm next Friday.
@@iammrbeat Thanks Mr. Beat!
Great video, I love these Supreme Court videos. Also sorry for my bad English it is not my first language.
Thank you! I wish this series did better. :(
@@iammrbeat It is very sad it doesn't because it is so loved by its watchers and you can tell hard work was put into it.
Ah, my favourite series, High Court Underwear.
High Court Whitey Tighties! 😄
Interesting video. I'd argue that thanks to this decision, satires and parodies can be so much more entertaining.
btw, is there a SC justice in particular that you view more (or less) favorably since your top 10 video?
I probably view Ruth Bader Ginsburg more favorably now
@@iammrbeat I see what you mean. Thank you.
@@iammrbeat Theres been a couple of her votes on certain previous briefs that made me look askance at her, but for the most part... i get it
@@SylviaRustyFae I agree. I really hate Kelo v New London, for example, but there are plenty of other cases that show what the hype is about.
I learned about this from the movie:
The People Vs. Larry Flynt
Hey Mr. B could you do a video explaining to folks the different reasons why Puerto Rico and Guam (Maybe compare?) are still US territories vs US states. I'm sure many of us would love to hear your research, findings and point of view on he topic. Thanks in advance!
Nicely done. Yes, I completely with that decision.
Beautiful😍 🔥🔥🔥
this is a good example of why the first amendment is so important. here in australia the former Deputy Premier (premier = governor. deputy premier is like the vp of the premier) of New South Wales John Barilaro is suing a youtuber named jordan shanks for publishing videos that both talk about alleged corrupt dealings and also poke fun at his italian heritage by making alot of mario jokes. the whole fiasco is similar to this case only more political in nature and defamation cases are easier to win in australia because we dont have a first amendment. free speech in our country is based entirely on court precedent and so is therefore alot easier to attack
The First Amendment is one of the greatest things my country ever came up with. Thanks for watching Down Under!
There is a recent example of this from current events. When the Australian Bishop George Pell was arrested and tried of sexual abuse Australian newspapers could not (initially) use his name or identity him in their stories for awhile by court order of the Australian government. He was simply an "anonymous Catholic clergymen." Meanwhile, the American media printed stories about the case and used Pell's full name and were under no obligation to follow Australia's media laws. It was a weird situation. Americans knew more about George Pell for a while than the people of Australia because of the difference in the free speech laws.
Get your hands on this one-stop shop for news by trying Apex News for free here: apexnews.onelink.me/fRCS/6442ea10
Which Supreme Court case would you like for me to cover next?
KSI vs Logan Paul
I'm still waiting for a video by you about Snyder v. Phelps
😬
@@peralta170 Right on
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish please!
It's interesting doing a "Supreme Court Briefs" episode involving Hustler Magazine. 😂😂🤣🤣 But Seriously Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell is a pretty important case for free speech especially parodying very self-centered celebrities and public figures!!
I’ve heard about this one
'Twas a big one
@Mr.Beat Is it possible you could do a video on the importance of Mid Term elections or the Top 5 Important Mid Term Elections in U.S. History?
I REALLY dig this idea.
@@iammrbeat Thank You also hope your having a good day
Hey, Mr.Beat. Bread thinks a supremely interesting case would be Mahanoy Area School District v B.L. Very interesting case, and very relevant to today.
Can you please do a video on Faulk v. Aware Inc.? I think that would be quite an interesting video
@Mr.Beat Perhaps you can do a video on the court case Sheff v. O'Neil a case that focus on both civil rights and the rights for Education
Not a U.S. Supreme Court case, but still an important one!
Do the Scopes Trial next
Mr. Beat, you should definitely do a Supreme Court Briefs video on FCC v. Fox Television Stations!
Still on my list! :)
@@iammrbeat Oh, heck yeah! Thank you.
Not being able to make stuff up about celebrities would set a much worse precedent, so they were right on that one.
I agree
Free speech is the fucking best thing. We should protect it with everything we can.
Agreed
But isn't a little dehumanizing to allow such rumours to be spread?
I really like Mr beat's voice
Can you make a video about the 2008 Financial Crisis? It's for my economic class.
I love Supreme Court briefs!
I think with the age of the internet, we need to lower the barrier to entry for Defamation lawsuits. It's just way to easy to ruin someone's life now. Like introducing minor defamation fines for gross negligence
Falwell read hustler magazine that's how he found out
Never heard of this case before.
Possibility of a tier list on US states?
GREAT SUGGESTION FOR A LIVESTREAM
What happens if I take a photo in the supreme court briefs?
In general I feel that all sides of society, not just in the US, but everywhere, needs to learn to laugh at their popular figures when subject to parody. Too often supporters of famous people need to calm down and let their hair down, learn to laugh at the parody. It makes everyone that little bit happier by having a laugh
Hustler walked so South Park could run
@Mr.Beat I really enjoyed this video, you should do a video on what would happen if James Garfield (The 20th president) didn't die and continued his presidency
I would love to make a video on that.
I didn’t know they became friends.
To be honest, I don't like this ruling. I feel that it constitutes an unjustifiable intrusion of privacy. As long as the people aren't politicians or are really influential in politics, they should be allowed to sue for privacy invasion. Given the hell many actors have to go through with their personal life being so heavily documented. We need to acknowledge that celebrities are people too and do not forfeit their rights simply because they become famous. Yes, they put themselves in the spotlight on purpose but that's like saying just because your favourite dish is pasta, you should eat pasta 24/7. I feel that the US needs much stricter privacy protections. But great video. I really liked it. Could you also cover Harper v Virginia and Romer v Evans?
You bring up good points. Also thanks for the suggestions!
Hustler was like a little slice of the internet before there was an internet.
Basically
Ah yes Jerry Falwell, the same same guy who's son along with Jim Justice tried to get some counties in the part of Virginia where I'm from to join West Virginia.
There's something hilarious about Mr beat saying "having sexual relations with his mother" very matter of factly
Pls Do South Dakota V. Wayfar (2018)
I agree with Falwell. The supreme courts arguments are completely true except for one thing; Falwell’s mother was also attacked in the piece, who knows what distress that caused and she’s not a public figure.
-
If they had been decent enough to use a fictional woman rather than a real family member, I would agree
That is the strongest argument for Falwell imo. I think his lawyers were unable to prove how his mother was really negatively affected when all readers knew it was a parody.
that hustler magazine cover was nice
You probably understand why I didn't show the whole thing. :)
Also I am not a fan of this case. If when you think Sarah Palin, you think, "You can see Russia from my house." That is part of it. She never said that. That was from SNL. Now if you realised that was a joke and instead think of, "You can see Russia from Alaska," (Alaska being the state she was governor of) and realised the, the house line was a joke, then that is different. I just have a problem when the joke becomes fact in the eyes of the masses.
Good point. It is quite amazing that people believe she said that, btw
NEW SUPREME COURT BRIEFS!!!!
Why only 8 votes in this case? Who was the 9th justice and why did he not vote?
I looked it up and it says Justice Anthony Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Doesn't say why he didn't.
The 9th was Anthony Kennedy, and he sat out on that case. I'm not sure why.
Anthony Kennedy was barely confirmed I think when deliberations were going on or when the ruling was handed out.
Anthony Kennedy was brand new to the bench and didn't hear the arguments
Some looking at the result might wonder where the ninth vote was. Well, there was none. This case was heard after Lewis Powell Jr. resigned from the court in 1987, and before Anthony Kennedy replaced him in 1988.
Indeed!
Also important to note, Robert Bork could have been the ninth justice but the Senate rejected him
Let’s goooooo!
Larry Flynt was a genius and ahead of his time... Jerry Falwell Jr., the son, would do most of these things from the fake ad in real life. So many "love offering," so many poolboys to pay off. 😁
I can make up stuff about celebrities?
Mr. Beat is a celebrity!
Therefore...here goes...
"Mr. Beat has green webbed feet that he uses to control the weather from his evil mountain top lair!"
My feet are yellow, though. 😆
How come a court of 9 people only casted 8 votes? What am I missing?
I don't think Justice Kennedy voted
@@moses4769 Yup, Kennedy sat out the whole case. I'm not sure why.
Anthony Kennedy was brand new to the bench and didn't hear the arguments
@@iammrbeat oh okay, thanks for answering Mr. Beat
@@iammrbeat Ahh, makes sense. And thank you!
Basically this allowed entire satire networks to exist
Why was thier only 8 vote in this case ? Was their vacancy or something ?
Sued for: "invasion of privacy"
hold up, wait a minute, something aint right...
With talks of legislation regarding AI I feel like this case is going to be cited quite a lot regarding the created of AI generated porn. Still not sure how the two would coexist but it seems to reason that legislation limiting AI in any capacity wont be allowed with this case as precedent
It turns out the real supreme court was the friend's we made along the way
I think that Scalia's and Rehnquist's ruling against Jerry Fawell is akin to last year when Gorsuch ruled in favor of expanding employment protections to include sexual orientation and transgender employees under existing Civil Rights laws. -
I don’t think this is the same as just allowing making stuff up about celebrities. I mean libel wasn’t allowed, it’s just that parody is allowed. I don’t understand why this would apply to trash rumor magazines that just make stuff up without claiming to be parody or fiction.
The problem is, where do you draw the line?
The first supreme courts briefs I heard was is George W Bush versus Al Gore
Libel and invasion of privacy in the first lawsuit. That's funny.
For his mother I guess 😏
@@iammrbeat I just thought invasion of privacy would have to be a true statement. Since how could someone invade my private life involving a false statement?
President During this time: Ronald Reagan
Chief Justice: William Rheinquist
Argued December 2, 1987
Decided February 24, 1988
Case Duration: 84 Days
Decision: 8-0 in favor of Hustler Magazine
This is hilarious! I thought this was going to be something about tabloid magazines and the media making up lies and rumors to tarnish a celebrity's reputation, but nope its just some Christian conservative dude who doesn't know what satire is, and also I love how he says "an invasion of privacy" as if he actually was doin the dirty with his mom!
You should make Cohen v California