485 U.S. 46 (1988)
Hustler Magazine, Inc., a magazine of nationwide circulation, and its publisher Larry Flynt published a parody of a Campari Liqueur advertisement in the November 1983 issue.1 The parody featured respondent Jerry Falwell and suggested that his first time sampling the liqueur occurred during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse.2 The parody included a disclaimer in small print that it was an ad parody not to be taken seriously.3
Falwell filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia seeking damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.4 The District Court directed a verdict against Falwell on the privacy claim.5 The jury found against respondent on the libel claim but awarded Falwell $100,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages from each petitioner on the emotional distress claim.6
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment.7 The Supreme Court granted certiorari given the importance of the constitutional issues involved.8
Whether a public figure may recover damages for emotional harm caused by the publication of an ad parody offensive to him?9
Public figures and public officials may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of publications such as the one here at issue.10 Recovery requires in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact made with actual malice, i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true.11
No. The established facts establish that Hustler Magazine and Larry Flynt published the Campari parody featuring Falwell.12 Falwell qualifies as a public figure given his national prominence as a minister and commentator.13 The jury specifically found that the parody could not reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about Falwell or actual events in which he participated. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the emotional distress damages on an outrageousness theory without requiring actual malice.14
Because the parody contained no provably false statement of fact, the First Amendment bars recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress.15
A public figure may not recover damages for emotional harm caused by an offensive ad parody without showing that the publication contains a false statement of fact made with actual malice.16
Related opinions on this issue
Justice White concurred in the judgment.17 As he saw it, the decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan has little to do with this case, for here the jury found that the ad contained no assertion of fact.18 But he agreed with the Court that the judgment below, which penalized the publication of the parody, cannot be squared with the First Amendment.19
White therefore joined the result without relying on the actual malice framework developed in the majority opinion.20