Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 5 page summary and discussion of this case that gives the case background and discusses 2 precedents for and 2 precedents against the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled for the magazine and against Falwell. Bibliography lists 4 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khhusvjf.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
an advertising campaign for Campari, an Italian apertif. The actual ads in this campaign offered interviews with noted celebrities and featured a double entendre headline that implied that the celebrities
discuss their first sexual experience, when the ad actually is concerned with the first time the celebrity tried Campari. The ad that precipitated the lawsuit presents Falwell as actually speaking
about his first sexual experience and it conveys humor that was in keeping with the often grossly offensive format of Hustler magazine. The Hustler parody portrays Falwell as saying that
his "first time was a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse" (Hustler v. Falwell, 1988). The ad carried a disclaimer, printed in a small type style at
the bottom of the page, which indicated that the ad was a parody and it was listed in the magazines table of contents as "Fiction: Ad and Personality Parody" (Hustler
v. Falwell, 1988). Falwell sued in order to recover damages for "libel, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress" (Hustler v. Falwell, 1988). The case was heard
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The District Court ruled for the petitioner concerning the privacy claims, but the jury found that the ad could
not be "reasonably understood as describing actual facts...or actual events" (Hustler v. Falwell, 1988). But while the libel charge was dismissed, the jury ruled that the magazine was responsible for
inflicting intentional emotional harm, awarding Falwell $150,000 (Hustler v. Falwell, 1988). The Court of Appeals upheld the judgment, rejecting that the petitioners claim that the "actual malice standard of New
York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1965) must be meant before the respondent can recover damages. As the majority opinion of Chief Justice William Rehnquist indicates, the main issue presented
...