TL;DR
maybe this is just to piss people off
-Hustler magazine
has a First Amendment right to publicly respond
to these comments by saying that Jerry Falwell
is full of B.S.It says, "Let's deflate this stuffed
shirt and bring him down to our level."
Our level, in this case, being,
admittedly, a lower level than most people would like
to be brought to. I know I'm not supposed to joke,
but that's sort of the point.
-Mr. Isaacman, the First Amendment
is not everything. It's of very important value, but
it's not the only value in our society. What about another value
which says that good people should be able
to enter public life and public service? The rule you give us says
if you stand for public office or become a public figure
in any way you cannot protect yourself
or, indeed, your mother against a parody of your
committing incest with her. Do you think that George Washington
would've stood for public office if that was the consequence?
-It's interesting that you mention
George Washington, Justice Scalia because very recently I saw
a 200-year-old political cartoon. It depicts George Washington
riding on a donkey being led by a man and the caption suggests that this man is leading an ass
to Washington.
-I can handle that. I think George can too. But that's a far cry from committing
incest with your mother in an outhouse. There's no line between the two?
-No, Justice Scalia,
I would say there isn't because you're talking about
a matter of taste, not law.
As you yourself said,
I believe in Pope vs. Illinois "It's useless to argue about taste
and even more useless to litigate it"
and that is the case here.
The jury has already determined that
this is a matter of taste, not of law...
If Jerry Falwell can sue when
there has been no libelous speech
purely on the grounds
of emotional distress
then so can other public figures.
Imagine, if you will, suits
against people like Garry Trudeau
and Johnny Carson,
for what he says on The Tonight Show.
Obviously, when people
criticize public figures
they're going to experience
emotional distress.
We all know that.
It's easy to claim
and impossible to refute.
That's what makes it
a meaningless standard.
Click to view-Hustler magazine
has a First Amendment right to publicly respond
to these comments by saying that Jerry Falwell
is full of B.S.It says, "Let's deflate this stuffed
shirt and bring him down to our level."
Our level, in this case, being,
admittedly, a lower level than most people would like
to be brought to. I know I'm not supposed to joke,
but that's sort of the point.
-Mr. Isaacman, the First Amendment
is not everything. It's of very important value, but
it's not the only value in our society. What about another value
which says that good people should be able
to enter public life and public service? The rule you give us says
if you stand for public office or become a public figure
in any way you cannot protect yourself
or, indeed, your mother against a parody of your
committing incest with her. Do you think that George Washington
would've stood for public office if that was the consequence?
-It's interesting that you mention
George Washington, Justice Scalia because very recently I saw
a 200-year-old political cartoon. It depicts George Washington
riding on a donkey being led by a man and the caption suggests that this man is leading an ass
to Washington.
-I can handle that. I think George can too. But that's a far cry from committing
incest with your mother in an outhouse. There's no line between the two?
-No, Justice Scalia,
I would say there isn't because you're talking about
a matter of taste, not law.
As you yourself said,
I believe in Pope vs. Illinois "It's useless to argue about taste
and even more useless to litigate it"
and that is the case here.
The jury has already determined that
this is a matter of taste, not of law...
If Jerry Falwell can sue when
there has been no libelous speech
purely on the grounds
of emotional distress
then so can other public figures.
Imagine, if you will, suits
against people like Garry Trudeau
and Johnny Carson,
for what he says on The Tonight Show.
Obviously, when people
criticize public figures
they're going to experience
emotional distress.
We all know that.
It's easy to claim
and impossible to refute.
That's what makes it
a meaningless standard.