Hustler (1988):  The Restatement (Second) of Torts definition
of intentional infliction of mental distress (IIMD) is “one who by
extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes
severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for
damages.”  This case deals with the extent to which the First Am.
protects “extreme and outrageous conduct” that takes form of
expression against public officials and public figures.  Parodying a
Campari Liqueur ad, Hustler carried an alleged interview with Rev.
Jerry Falwell describing his “first time” as having sex with his mom
in an outhouse.  At the bottom of the ad, there was a disclaimer: “ad
parody—not to be taken seriously” and the magazine’s table of
contents listed the ad as “Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody.”  P
(Falwell) sued D (Hustler magazine) for IIMD and libel.  The lower ct
held D liable for IIMD of P but did not hold D liable for libel
(since no one could reasonably interpret the ad as describing actual
facts about P).  Does the First Am. protect “extreme and outrageous
conduct” that takes the form of expression against public officials
and public figures, and thus does the First Am. prevent an IIMD
recovery?