kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (08/17/86)
Hustler Magazine has been found liable for $200,000 for publishing a
fake interview with Jerry Falwell. The magazine pointed out that the
interview was obviously fake and that nobody had been misled by it.
The court and Falwell conceded that this was a sufficient defense
against libel. So how Falwell win his case? Hustler Magazine has
been found liable for 'inflicting emotional distress' on Falwell.
This is an amazing doctrine! A whole new exception to the First
Amendment! Think of the doors it opens. Perhaps the administration
can silence critical journalists because they are causing emotional
distress to the President. Perhaps some of the liberals on this list
will sue me because my arguments cause them emotional distress. Can
you think of ANY writing that does not cause SOMEONE emotional
distress?
This is typical of the current case-by-case mentality. There was no
good excuse for what Hustler did. Falwell is very popular in this
country. Hustler Magazine is very unpopular. So why not rule against
them? This is very insidious. Once you allow certain exceptions, on
a case-by-case basis, to fundamental constitutional protections, where
can one draw the line? Is the First Amendment worth anything if it
only guarantees freedom of popular speech, of goverment (or majority)
santioned speech?
My favorite example of a real test is the current debate on banning
tobacco advertisements. I am very allergic to tobacco smoke. Smoking
has no redeeming social value. It has no pro side at all. On the con
side is at least 350,000 deaths per year, many of which are innocent
non-smokers caught in the nauseating stench, tens of billions of
dollars of additional health costs every year, tens of billions of
dollars of lost productivity every year, widespread polarization
between smokers and nonsmokers that has led to millions of lost jobs,
tens of thousands of assaults, and more than a few murders. Not to
mention the enormous toll of lost life, health, and property caused by
fires caused by careless smokers. Tobacco is one of the most
addictive substances known. Most people who try at least three
cigarettes will continue to smoke until they die.
There is no question that tobacco advertisements encourage and
increase use of tobacco. Especially the advertisements that are
obvioulsy targeted to women and young non-smokers. These
advertisements have no purpose whatsoever, except to addict millions
of people to a deadly, poisionous, and expensive substance with no
legitimate use.
So any rational person should oppose tobacco advertisements, right?
Well, I do. I do not buy magazines or books that advertise
cigarettes. If any radio or TV stations advertised cigarettes I
wouldn't watch them. I make it a point to buy magazines that make it
a point NOT to accept revenues from tobacco companies.
So, do I support the proposed ban on such advertisements? I do not.
The advertisements are not libelous nor are they false. The tobacco
companies may be misusing the First Amendment in my view, but they are
protected by it nonetheless.
If the government does not support the right of unpopular people to
say unpopular things, then in what sense does the First Amendment
really apply? Only to popular speech and writings? Only to speech
and writings which most people agree have a useful purpose? Is this
what it says in the Constitution?
...Keith
[ Has this Hustler case made it to the Supreme Court? If it is, then
this is very bad, if not, then its still bad, but it may be
correctable. -CWM]
-------campbell@maynard.UUCP (08/23/86)
kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@mc.lcs.mit.edu writes: > Hustler Magazine has been found liable for $200,000 for publishing >a fake interview with Jerry Falwell. The magazine pointed out that >the interview was obviously fake and that nobody had been misled by >it. The court and Falwell conceded that this was a sufficient >defense against libel. So how Falwell win his case? Hustler >Magazine has been found liable for 'inflicting emotional distress' on >Falwell. > This is an amazing doctrine! A whole new exception to the First >Amendment! Think of the doors it opens. Perhaps the administration >can silence critical journalists because they are causing emotional >distress to the President. Perhaps some of the liberals on this list >will sue me because my arguments cause them emotional distress. Can >you think of ANY writing that does not cause SOMEONE emotional >distress? ... > ...Keith I'm surprised -- I actually agree with Keith 100% on this one. This court ruling stinks, and I hope it's appealed and overturned. Keith's posting went on to defend the tobacco companies's right to advertise, and again I agree with him. It is precisely the unpopular views, even (especially) the repugnant ones, that the First Amendment was designed to protect. The case of the neo-Nazis in Skokie Illinios is another example. The ACLU lost lots of members for its defense of their right to march in Skokie. I contend that those who cancelled their membership over this were simply hypocrites. I forgot who said it -- Voltaire? -- but "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is an especially important aphorism to recall these days. -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell (617) 367-6846 -------