1. According to Supreme Court precedents explained in the introduction what characteristics of the Hustler Campari ad made it impossible to award Falwell libel damages against Hustler?
2. If Hustler had not written in bold print, AD PARODY-NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, would the jury have likely found Hustler guilty of libel? Explain and support your position. (Think about the satires you see on Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show)
3. Because libel damages were not allowed against Hustler, the Supreme Court had to decide the case solely on the constitutionality of the jury's verdict that the parody inflicted emotional distress on Falwell. Why did the Court reject the argument that the infliction of emotional distress entitled Falwell to monetary damages from Hustler? Cite specific language from the Court's decision to support your answer.
4. If you were on the federal court jury in Virginia that initially decided the case, would you have voted to award monetary damages to Falwell for suffering the infliction of emotional distress? Explain and support your position.
5. In 2011, the Supreme Court announced its decision in the emotionally charged case of Snyder v. Phelps (No. 09-751). Members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, had been protesting at military funerals, including that of Snyder's son, a Marine. Westboro Church members believed that U.S. fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan were indicative of God's judgment on the alleged moral decadence of the United States, especially its tolerance of homosexuality. They held up signs with messages like, "America Is Doomed" and "God Hates Fags." A jury awarded damages to Snyder for Westboro's (Phelps) intentional infliction of emotional distress. In ruling that the First Amendment protected the Westboro picketers' speech and assembly, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, "Any distress occasioned by Westboro's picketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference with the funeral itself." 1 "Such speech:' Roberts wrote, "cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt:' Justice Alito, the lone dissenter, wrote that "outrageous conduct caused [Snyder] great injury, and the Court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered. To have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like [Snyder]."
a. Is the Supreme Court's decision in Snyder v. Phelps consistent with its decision in the Falwell case? Explain your answer.
b. Do the circumstances of the Snyder case cause you to change your mind about the decision in the Falwell case (question 4)? Why or why not? (Consider Justice Alito's dissent in formulating your response.)