Court Bars Damages to Falwell

Public Figures' Obligation to Prove Libel Is Affirmed

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that the Rev. Jerry Falwell may not collect $200,000 in damages from publisher Larry C. Flynt and Hustler magazine for an advertising parody that portrayed Falwell as a drunkard having sex with his mother in an outhouse.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for an eight-member court, said public figures who cannot prove that they were libeled cannot recover damages for sarcastic parodies or opinions, no matter how outrageous, that might cause them emotional distress.

"At the heart of the First Amendment," Rehnquist said, "is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern."

Rehnquist, citing earlier opinions and strongly reaffirming the court's landmark 1964 ruling, New York Times v. Sullivan, said, "The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty -- and thus a good unto itself -- but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole."

A jury in Roanoke gave Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, a $200,000 judgment against Flynt for the 1983 parody, a takeoff on a Campari Liqueur ad campaign in which celebrities discussed "their first time."

The jury said the parody was not libelous because it clearly could not be believed. But the jury assessed damages on grounds that Flynt could be held liable for "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the award, saying press protections in the New York Times case did not apply to such knowingly reckless conduct and that the issue was whether the ad's "publication was sufficiently outrageous."

Rehnquist, reversing that ruling, said that, "in the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment. In {a 1964 case}, we held that, even when a speaker or writer is motivated by hatred or ill will, his expression was protected by the First Amendment."

In this case, the flamboyant publisher admitted that he wanted to hurt and embarrass Falwell, but Rehnquist said cartoons and parodies often are "calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal."

"Outrageousness in the area of political and social discourse," Rehnquist said, "has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression."

Rehnquist said the court could find no "principled standard to separate" renowned political cartoonists and Flynt's crude efforts.

Without such a standard, he said, a finding against Flynt would subject all others to suits.