Talk:Hustler Magazine v. Falwell/Archive 1

Archive 1

The description

The description of Stanley Fish's *valid* point of view is intended to lead interested readers to this valuable essay. If someone thinks that falsely presenting Falwell (who I disapprove of politically, if that is of any relevance) as having incestuous relations with his mother -- using the despicable justification of "it's just a joke" -- is *not* vicious and malicious libel but is instead justifiable satire on a public figure, then that person is in special need of reading Fish's essay. 142.103.168.15 04:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It is POV to call the free speech argument "extremely dubious," and to call the advertisement "vicious and malicious libel" (not to mention legally incorrect; after all, the country's highest court unanimously ruled otherwise). It would not be inappropriate to state that Fish believed the free speech argument to be "extremely dubious" and that the speech was actually "vicious and malicious libel," as long as those perspectives are attributed to him and actually reflect what his essay argued. But you're obviously attempting to push his view as correct in this case, which is not permitted. Postdlf 14:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A unanimously wrong decision relying on tortured logic and false analogy that would not be accepted by the judiciary in any other English-speaking country. It reminds me of the gibe (Mencken?) that judges are law students who get to grade their own examination papers. 142.103.168.15 02:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Verification tag. I removed the verify-sources tag, because I didn't see any sources that were unverified, especially after revising sections of the article. If any remain, please explain. ---Axios023 05:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Even gynecological". When it first appeared, Hustler became known for its extremely graphic and detailed photographs of the female anatomy. The word "gynecological" is not used in its medical sense, but as metaphor. Consequently, I don't think a link is appropriate, although I do think the text is fine as is.---Axios023 03:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is it? $150,000 or $250,000 awarded? The article lists both.

"The jury ruled for respondent on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, however and stated that he should be awarded $100,000 in compensatory damages, as well as $50,000 each in punitive damages from petitioners.[note 2] Petitioners' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied." (ref: Boston College Law School archives) --- Taintedzodiac 21:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Majority opinion

The Majority opinion section makes it unclear what parts are actually taken from the actual majority opinion, and which parts are commentary. Could someone fix this? --151.203.237.183 (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget that if it is judged illegal to run parodies like Hustler's, than it could also be judged illegal for preachers to publicly denounce pornographers as evil, sinful or damned.76.27.212.74 (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)