High Court to Review Falwell-Flynt Case

Damage Award for Hustler Parody at Issue

The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to review a $200,000 judgment won by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, against publisher Larry C. Flynt and Hustler magazine for an advertising parody that pictured Falwell as an incestuous drunkard.

The raunchy parody, published in the November 1983 and March 1984 issues, was a takeoff on an advertising campaign for Campari liquor, in which celebrities talk about "their first time."

The key issue in the case is a whether someone who is not libeled can nevertheless recover damages for sarcastic parodies or opinions that cause them emotional distress. News media lawyers warned that an appeals court ruling upholding the award would establish an exceptionally broad avenue for angry plaintiffs to sue, even over truthful articles.

In other action yesterday, the justices voted 6 to 3 to uphold an Oregon law that allows public schools to prohibit teachers from wearing religious clothing on the job.

The majority, without opinion, dismissed a constitutional challenge to an Oregon supreme court ruling that said the law was valid as a means of maintaining religious neutrality in the public schools.

Justices William J. Brennan Jr., Thurgood Marshall and Sandra Day O'Connor dissented from the ruling, saying they would hear arguments in Cooper v. Eugene School District No. 4J to decide whether the restriction of religious freedom was constitutional.

The case involved Janet Cooper, a special education teacher in the Eugene public schools who became a Hindu Sikh, donned white clothes and a white turban and wore them while teaching here sixth- and eighth-grade classes.

The state high court said the law was needed "to avoid giving children or their parents the impression that the school {approves} the religious commitment of one group and perhaps finds that of others less worthy." Wearing such clothing occasionally, the state court said, would be appropriate and wearing a crucifix or Star of David also would be acceptable.

Also yesterday, the justices canceled a hearing scheduled for Wednesday on an Illinois law that requires parental notification for teen-agers seeking abortions.

The highly unusual, last-minute, cancellation notice said only that arguments in the case were "deferred to a later date." It did not say whether the justices intended to postpone arguments to later in April, when the court ends arguments for this term, or to the next term.

Lawyers familiar with the case speculated that the justices may have discovered some procedural problems in the case and wanted more briefs or more time to study the issue, or that they may be considering whether to dismiss the case.

"I think it is very good," Janet Benshoof, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney opposed to the Illinois law, said of the action. "I think they are looking at the fact that the {lower court} ruling was not a final judgment on all the issue" and therefore not ready for high court review.