Isaacman defends Hustler's parody under the First Amendment
Alan L. IsaacmanAttorney arguing for Hustler Magazine and Larry Flynt
Hustler's attorney argues that the parody is protected rhetorical hyperbole, satire and opinion.
“Now, this speech is protected as rhetorical hyperbole, it's protected as satire and parody and as the expression of opinion.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell: Supreme Court reverses emotional-distress award over ad parody
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell concerned a parody advertisement depicting Jerry Falwell in an offensive fictional interview. A jury rejected his libel claim because the parody could not reasonably be understood as describing actual facts, but awarded damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Falwell's counsel argued that deliberately malicious injury could support liability. Hustler's counsel argued that rhetorical hyperbole, satire and parody were protected. On February 24, 1988, the Supreme Court reversed the award. All participating justices agreed in the judgment; Justice Byron White wrote separately and Justice Anthony Kennedy did not participate.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
Counsel present opposing arguments about parody, public figures and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Answering a question about the state's interest in protecting people from emotional distress, Isaacman says people engaging in political debate use vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp language, as New York Times v. Sullivan put it.
After the quotation
Asked whether the case would differ if the jury had found the parody could be read as factual, he says it would, but argues that the Court should still find as a matter of law that the allegations could not be perceived as factual.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to publication of the parody, Isaacman expressly defends its First Amendment protection.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseGrutman argues malicious publication can support liability
“Deliberate, malicious character assassination is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Isaacman defends Hustler's parody under the First Amendment
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/7288-hustler-s-attorney-argues-that-the-parody-is
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Isaacman defends Hustler's parody under the First Amendment". First published: 2026-10-30. Last updated: 2026-10-30. https://disputeindex.com/events/7288-hustler-s-attorney-argues-that-the-parody-is