Hustler Magazine and Sarah Palin v. New York Times
In 2011 some lunatic shot up a softball game in the DC area. Legacy Media said the shooter was motivated by Sarah Palin’s aggressive conservative rhetoric. The media later admitted Palin had nothing to do with it. In 2017, there was a shooting in Arizona, and when reporting on that shooting the New York Times reminded readers about the 2011 softball shooting “caused by Sarah Palin.” Palin sued the New York Times for this false statement. She lost because of a Supreme Court case involving Hustler magazine. In 1983, Hustler published a satirical article about conservative leader Jerry Falwell with suggestions of incest. Falwell sued and won until the Supreme Court reversed the case. The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment not only protected the media from the government telling the media what it could or could not print but also protected the media from private lawsuits. The Court held that private lawsuits could not be used to circumvent the First Amendment protection of free speech and that public figures must prove “malice,” the intention to cause the public figure harm. It was a big victory for free speech, perhaps not “good” speech, but free. Palin lost her case because the New York Times is held to the same standard as a Hustler magazine article about incest. The New York Times openly admitted that they were dead wrong, but Palin could not prove they intended to harm her specifically. For more on the Falwell lawsuit and the Supreme Court case, see the 1996 movie The People vs. Larry Flynt [warning: NSFW].
Did I Say NSFW? The Case of Drake and Hot Sauce
An Instagram model says that she had a “romantic encounter” with the rapper Drake last month. She says that after they had sex, Drake went to the bathroom and threw away his condom. The woman wanted Drake’s baby, so, after Drake left, she took the condom out of the trash and attempted to impregnate herself. That’s when she suffered a burning sensation “down there,” Drake later admitted that he poured a packet of hot sauce in the condom, “to kill the sperm” he says. He has previously admitted that he makes sure that women can’t collect his sperm after sex but has never said anything about the hot sauce maneuver. In the song “Wasting Time,” Drake raps, “Gold medalist, flushed the Magnums just so they not collectin’ my specimens, damn.” Ok, so he flushes his condoms, maybe a smart move, but it begs the question—why didn’t he flush this condom instead of pouring hot sauce in it and leaving it in the trash can? And that is the question the Instagram model’s attorney is asking. The model alleges that Drake was trying to intentionally cause her pain by going the hot sauce route, instead of flushing, and is seeking compensation. And she will probably get some compensation. Drake looks like a damn psychopath putting hot sauce in a used condom as preemptive payback if she tries to steal his seed. Men, don’t try to intentionally hurt women, no matter what the situation.
Flag Freedom
Boston City Hall has several flag poles, and an extra pole that it allows people to send in flags to fly over city hall. Flags for schools, charitable organizations, ethnic groups, etc. From 2005 to 2017, the city approved 284 consecutive requests and had never turned down a flag request. But then a man applied to raise a white flag with a red cross on a blue square in the upper left corner, which he noted was a “Christian flag.” The Christian Flag was turned down on the grounds it would appear that the city was endorsing one religion over another. Lawsuit was filed and made it to the Supreme Court last week. The case has had the remarkable effect of uniting conservative religious groups with the ACLU and the Biden administration, all of whom said the city was wrong. The case is a battle between the First Amendment on one side and the First Amendment on the other side. The First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing a religion, and the First Amendment bans the government from picking and choosing what kind of speech it allows in a public forum. The issue comes down to whether or not the flagpole is (1) the city’s speech or (2) a public forum. Boston argues a flag on a city flagpole between the USA and Massachusetts flag is seen as city speech. Everyone on the other hand, in a “public forum,” Boston cannot pick on religious speech. Everyone but Boston argues that allowing nearly 300 flags without ever questioning or denying a request opened up the flagpole as a “public forum” where all legal speech must be allowed. Most observers predict Boston will lose and the Christian Flag will get to fly.
Mitchell Driskell has been an Oxford lawyer for twenty-one years. He practices criminal law, family law, business transactions and civil litigation. Email him mdriskell@danielcoker.com. Follow him on Instagram @mdriskell, twitter @MODIIItweets, TikTok @DriskellLaw and on Facebook.
