Attached Link: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hustler.html

Regarding the Flynt v. Falwell, (where the item was clearly labled as "ad parody -- not to be taken seriously.") from Chief Justice Rehenquist wrote in the 8-0 opinion: "The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury's finding to be that the ad parody "was not reasonably believable," and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding. Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by "outrageous" conduct. But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly Reversed." Tune in to any of the late night talk shows or Saturday Night Live and you'll see polititians and celebs satiricaly skewered with lookalikes and doctored photos all the time. There's a difference between satire and outright lies passed off as fact ala the Enquirer. The Constitution hasn't been entirely gutted yet but they're working on it.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken