Media

Judge Andrew Napolitano Says S.E. Cupp Likely Doesn’t Have a Case Against Hustler: ‘Protected Satire’

Judge Andrew Napolitano Says S.E. Cupp Likely Doesnt Have a Case Against Hustler Magazine for Explicit PhotoFox News’ senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said Thursday that S.E. Cupp likely wouldn’t have a case against Hustler magazine for publishing a fake, sexually explicit image of her.

“In my opinion, this is protected satire, as it is actually less lurid than what Hustler did to the late Jerry Falwell and which the Supreme Court found was not actionable,” Napolitano wrote in an email to The Blaze, referring to the 1988 decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Hustler publisher Larry Flynt cited the case Wednesday in his defense of the photo.

Napolitano said Cupp might be able to find a federal judge who would allow the case to go to a jury, “but in doing so, this doctored photo would be re-published; and any jury verdict in her favor would no doubt be reversed on appeal.”

The Falwell case arose after the magazine published a piece that said the pastor had engaged in a drunken, incestuous encounter with his mother in an outhouse. The court held in an 8-0 decision that parodies of public figures were protected under the First Amendment as long as they could not be reasonably taken as true.

Robert Drechsel, a media law expert at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told The Blaze it‘s precisely because Hustler’s photo of Cupp is so over the top that she wouldn’t have standing to sue for libel or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Hustler’s disclaimer beside the photo that “no such picture of S.E. Cupp actually exists” helps, Drechsel said, but does not automatically immunize the magazine from a lawsuit by itself. What matters is how people take it.

Judge Andrew Napolitano Says S.E. Cupp Likely Doesnt Have a Case Against Hustler Magazine for Explicit Photo“The irony is, it‘s because it’s so outrageous that nobody would take it seriously,” Drechsel said.

Cupp said during an appearance on ABC’s “The View” Thursday she probably would not pursue legal action.

“This is a First Amendment issue, Larry Flynt does this professionally,” she said.

Legality aside, Kelly McBride, a journalism ethics instructor at the Poynter Institute, said there are ethical considerations when publishing such a photo — considerations she suspects Hustler, as a pornographic magazine, doesn’t subscribe to.

Such considerations, McBride said, begin with the purpose of the image.

“I suspect Hustler was shooting for commentary, not journalism. But they may have been shooting for influence, as in they are trying to influence how people think about S.E. Cupp,” McBride wrote in an email to The Blaze. “You have to balance that against the possible harm. In this case there is a harm to Cupp, as well as a harm to our ability to have a civil discourse in this democracy.”

She added, “I doubt Hustler went through any of this process, because I don’t think they are interested in any sort of common good.”

Comments (135)

1 2 3
  • liltexasgal
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:47pm

    Morals, values, common courtesy, decency and respect one for another. Is that too much to ask for? This world has gone to hell in a handbasket.

    Report Post » liltexasgal  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 12:14am

      That is “modern liberalism”, ideological subversion and demoralization of society. A demoralized society without a shared set of values ethics and morals is easily controlled and manipulated by the State or its agents as it lacks cohesiveness.

      This is why the left is working to destroy certain religions that empower the individual, They must demoralize and replace it with collectivist values and ideology. Flynt is a useful idiot, he is subverting morality, but when the State gains control of morality through complete submission to the State, people like Flynt will be discarded.He is a tool.

      The end game is totalitarianism and tyranny and these idealistic “useful idiots” who believe that true freedom comes from the State will be the first to be eliminated.

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 9:17am

      Actually it’s not satire if the pictures could be considered true. At that point it‘s deformation of character and since SE Cupp could totally be in that situation it’s deformation. Reguardless of the disclaimer placed below it. What would the mesia do if Flynt had Michelle Obama blowing a donkey…I bet dollars of dimes there would be a gaint backlash…..

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 9:57am

      @Sue Dohnim Tell you what Sue. Do some research on the demographics and political leanings of who buys this issue of Hustler and they make your generalized statement. It’s like the conservatives who want to blame the federal deficit purely on Obama, but neglect to identify the Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. ran up $10 billion plus and that Bush Jr. handed over a $1.2 trillion deficit run rate to Obama when he left office. Ideological biased proclamations are neither facts nor insightful.

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 9:59am

      I would disagree with the Judge on this one as S.E. Cupp is not nearly enough of a celebrity or important figure to provide cover for a satire defense.

      Report Post »  
    • Best_Patriot
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 12:10pm

      @johnjamison, haha “deformation” or character. THIS SITE IS GOLD! Keep up the great work, tea bags.

      Report Post » Best_Patriot  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 3:02pm

      @JROOK

      you must be a farmer, I have never seen so many straw-men played…

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • fangbanger
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 7:51pm

      this is an example of just because you can does not mean you should.

      this is nothing but free publicity for s.e. cupp and hustler and you all are soaking it up.

      ask yourself this. if no one would have reported on the photo would you have seen it? i would not have. I heard and saw it on the blaze.

      Report Post » fangbanger  
    • nzkiwi
      Posted on May 26, 2012 at 10:03am

      Actually the judge is quite correct. As distasteful as it may be, it is free speech.

      Just because it is offensive to you, and this is pretty offensive, does not mean that the miscreant can be prosecuted. That is a nasty slippery slope that no-one needs to step on to, unless you are a muslim (or similar).

      We have no protection from being offended, and neither should we have. To enjoy free speech ourselves means that we must also tolerate the free speech of others – no matter that it might infuriate us.

      Look past our outrage and toward the liberty protecting principle.

      Report Post »  
    • nzkiwi
      Posted on May 26, 2012 at 10:16am

      And, by the way, Flynt was put in a wheelchair defending free speech.

      Long story, unhappy ending.

      Principles matter.

      Report Post »  
    • midwesthippie
      Posted on May 26, 2012 at 3:10pm

      …S.E. needs to learn to take it on the chin…instead of in the mouth.lol. strong women don’t need to react to pettiness.

      Report Post » midwesthippie  
  • Sue Dohnim
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:33pm

    I disagree with the Judge and the media lawyer,

    S E has a stronger case than Falwell did, his was written in an article and clearly was “unbelievable”. The S E pic in the context of Hustler Mag was no different than most pics in that publication. In other words, the image was consistent with the context in which it was presented. Therefore more “believable”, the media attorney noted that printing a disclaimer is does not absolve from defamation.

    Of course, a court would decide this, but it is a stronger case than suggested by the judge and the lawyer as it is materially different from Falwell.

    S E should find he best “LIBERAL” lawyer and look into it. Defamation and libel, in this case, is a high bar but it may be winnable.

    Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:45pm

      I hope S E gets some thorough and top level legal advice before dismissing the issue.

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • Mimi24
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 12:04am

      If Glenn Beck doesn’t offer up his team of lawyers to back her up then I will lose all respect for him. I know she was on Fox before but it was really being on Beck’s show that painted the target on her back. Sorry for what you are going through SE but it’s not just about you. This has to be stopped. Right here and right now.

      Report Post »  
    • vox_populi
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 12:04am

      She doesn’t have a case. The graphic included a number of large, bold-faced “this-isn’t-real” reminders. Disgusting, yes, but perfectly legal.

      Report Post » vox_populi  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 12:17am

      @Vox

      case law says that you can’t absolve yourself with a disclaimer, it may help but a disclaimer is not an automatic win.

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • brother_ed
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 12:28am

      @VOX_POPULI

      Believe it, or not…I agree with you.

      I’m no lawyer, so I‘ll respect the Judge’s opinion,

      Report Post » brother_ed  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 12:40am

      Judge said “unlikely” that means maybe, but difficult, it does not mean NO CASE

      IMO, it would be tough, but possible.

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • CCulotta
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 8:43am

      So let me get this straight. Larry Flynt provides another great example of real war on women and you want to silence him through legal action? First of all, I say that Larry was clearly within the confines of free speech. Secondly, who comes out looking better in this situation. S.E. or Larry “I think Obama is great” Flynt. Put on your big boy/girl pants and step onto the battleground of ideas and out of the courtroom.

      Report Post » CCulotta  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 9:32am

      @CCULOTTA

      Obviously you don’t understand the legal difference between satire and defamation.

      This one is a close call, for the courts IMO and quite different from the Falwell case.

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • TheSoundOf Truth
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 9:41am

      So wait…if it was “true”, then they can’t publish it…but if it is a lie, they can?

      HUH? WTF is the logic in that?

      Bottom line is that they are committing libel because it is NOT a ‘satire”; it is a political attack directed at disparaging her name; plus, they are using her likeness for profit without her permission.

      If Athletes and Movie stars can sue for someone using their likeness to sell a product or a magazine, then how come a woman like SE Cupp can’t sue for the same reason?

      She has a case, a pretty strong one…

      And if she doesn’t, NO ONE is safe from persecution or slander/libel for their political views.

      Sorry, but if this was Susan Powers, Hustler would have federal agents at their door. It‘s a double standard and if someone doesn’t do something about it, everyone who disagrees with mainstream liberalism, someone can create sexually disparaging articles about you and call it “satire”.

      Hustler was trying to make a point on behalf of the pro-abortion/Pro-VD porn industry, NOT to create a satirical piece. It was anything BUT satire, by definition. It was attacking someone who disagreed with a political position. That is not satire. It is political character assassination.

      Besides, Hustler is a joke.

      Report Post » TheSoundOf Truth  
    • Goldline_scam
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 12:07pm

      If Hustler can’t do this, then newspapers can’t print political cartoons. Of course it’s protected satire – we don’t need that helmet-haired faux dago judge to tell us that.

      Who reads Hustler anyway? A very small minority of raincoat-wearing perverts. Who cares?

      Report Post » Goldline_scam  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 2:48pm

      @GOLDLINE_SCAM

      For the thousandth time for the slow people..

      a cartoon is clearly not real the test is “believability” and a disclaimer does not absolve, case law

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
  • soybomb315
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:20pm

    For those of you who think this should be illegal….What if someone at MSNBC verbally said what is described on this Hustler cover. Would that be illegal? What is the difference?

    Report Post » soybomb315  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:43pm

      the test is context and believability,

      Describing something true is not libel.

      Knowingly presenting something false and defamatory that can reasonably be believed in its context is libel, not easy to prove but there is a line there.

      A cartoon is clearly not true, but a realistic photoshop pic might be “believed”

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • soybomb315
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:48pm

      yea, better get the anti-deffamation league involved. Team up with rev. al sharpton and ACLU for this one.

      I got an idea – its called get the f— over it. Since when is it other peoples responsibility to stand up for yourself. If someone calls you a name or falsely depicts you – be a grown up and handle it.

      Report Post » soybomb315  
    • Mimi24
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:48pm

      The difference is that she never posed for or agreed for any likeness to be released. If this were your wife or daughter you would be screaming for their heads. The fact that she is a conservative woman painted a target on her and anyone that says any different is lying. If this had been done to Hillary or Michelle heads would roll.

      Report Post »  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 12:32am

      @SOYBOMB315

      Clearly, you lack rational comprehension

      Defamation, libel and slander are against the LAW.

      This case is materially different from the Falwell case which Flynt cites as his protection, it is so close to the “illegal” line that only a court can really decide it.

      S E should get the best legal advice available…

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • luxlife
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 1:27am

      Soybomb is correct

      Report Post » luxlife  
    • nzkiwi
      Posted on May 26, 2012 at 10:19am

      Yes, Soybomb is, unhappily.

      Report Post »  
  • TJexcite
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:11pm

    In a small government world, nothing can be done to stop it. Which is better a big government that controls all or freedom for all.

    Report Post » TJexcite  
    • Mimi24
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 12:08am

      Let this happen to your wife, sister, mother or girlfriend and then see how you feel about it.

      Report Post »  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 1:14am

      Huh, a small gov doesn’t mean no LAWS

      There are laws against defamation, the argument here is whether or not the S E pic meets the test in court. It is a high bar…

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • luxlife
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 1:32am

      Yes – ban all satire immediately! In fact remove the word from the Newspeak dictionary…ahhh safe now from uncomfortable expression. Grow up.

      Report Post » luxlife  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 9:26am

      @LUXLIFE

      Defamation is not satire, you are using a straw-man to show your ignorance.

      you and Flynt have deemed the pic satire as a defence for defamation, a court may not…

      Satire is protected speech, defamation is not…

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • JRook
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 1:06pm

      @Sue Dohnim While you spouting off definitions and correcting others with pseudo legal babble. Keep in mind the key test is not the outcome or harm felt by target of the satire, but the intent. S.E. Cupp will need to present a strong argument that Hustler’s intent was to defame her reputation. Given that there were other and better know figures in the same piece, the bar will be very high indeed.

      Report Post »  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 2:57pm

      @JROOK

      I agree,
      I am not saying it is easy or a slam dunk, the bar is high, even higher if you are a political figure. I am pointing out the factual errors made by people including the “Judge”. The court test is a complex legal one. Not well understood..

      The image itself looks and represents reality. disclaimers are not a defence
      Flynt is hiding behind the Falwell case which is materially different..

      If the image itself were a drawing or clearly not real then no case, but with photoshop the image is too realistic. That is what makes this unique.

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
  • donh2
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:03pm

    Libertarians have a sad track record of defending the most extreme acts of pornographers. Most of the women who appear in Flynt’s smut publications sign a contract and get paid. Photoshopping a woman sexually to avoid paying for a female’s sexual exploitation is a valid legal issue. Its like raping a woman to avoid paying $300 for a prostitute. Cheap auto dealers cannot substitute a fake celebrity voice endorsement in their media commercials to avoid paying the celebrity.

    Report Post »  
    • soybomb315
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:17pm

      This is such a strange arguement people like you make. Are you saying a person has exclusive rights to their image? That sounds like the native americans who thought pictures contained a piece of their soul.

      What if Hustler had hand drawn SE Cupp on the front – is that illegal too? There is no end to this slippery slope. People like you clamor for the government to get involved and regulate the most grey areas and next thing you know we have obamacare and 16T in debt

      Report Post » soybomb315  
    • donh2
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:53pm

      See soy…its pervert libertarians like you who use “ slippery slope” analogies in a discussion about an oral sex picture. Chivalry is in quite a state of decline to see so many piggish men like Judge Nap defend a slug like flynt.

      Report Post »  
    • vox_populi
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 12:11am

      “Cheap auto dealers cannot substitute a fake celebrity voice endorsement in their media commercials to avoid paying the celebrity.”

      They can so long as they admit it’s not actually the celebrity talking. The photo included pretty explicit wording that the image was faked and not to be taken seriously. There’s no case here. Not that Hustler‘s actions aren’t heinous – they’re just not illegal.

      Report Post » vox_populi  
    • soybomb315
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 12:11am

      you cant legislate chivalry

      Report Post » soybomb315  
    • TheSoundOf Truth
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 9:44am

      “Are you saying a person has exclusive rights to their image?”

      Barry Bonds and Peyton Manning seem to think so.

      Report Post » TheSoundOf Truth  
    • JRook
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 1:54pm

      @donh2 There is no slippery slop here only people who proceed with a desired ideological answer and back into the narrative and facts. S.E. Cupp has placed herself in the public eye and clearly presents a desired image and persona. It is that image and persona that lends itself to the satire. It is not the harm or insult Cupp might feel that drives the legal claim in this instance but Hustler’s intent. If it is to sell magazines through a provocative and perhaps offensive piece than that it is what it is. Not sure S.E. Cupp is that relevant to anyone enough that defaming her would be advantageous to Hustler. The fact that she and other conservative outlets stay with the story is indicative that she is now using it to foster and further her chosen image and persona.

      Report Post »  
  • abbygirl1994
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:56pm

    So what the Judge is saying is, its okay to use satire on S.E. Cupp but use it on Obama and have the FEDS knocking on your door.. That just isn’t right! Flint will get his, when the jaws of hell opens for him! He still has time to repent.. bets whether he does or not!!

    Report Post » abbygirl1994  
    • Realist4U
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:13pm

      Next time Paul Ryan look alike throws somebody in a wheelchair off a cliff, “please” let it be Larry(the sc*mbag) Flynt.

      Report Post »  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 5:44am

      What the hell are you talking about? Politicians have always been fair game for satire, and I have never heard of the feds showing up to hassle anyone for satirical use of Obama or any other president’s image.

      Report Post »  
  • THXll38
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:55pm

    The ******** got you social cons right where they want you LOL.

    Report Post » THXll38  
  • Angel_light
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:55pm

    this so called lawyer doesn’t even know his own shi*. Hustler doing this is uncalled for and never should have done this. the last time i checked if you wanted to have questionable pictures like this and make known to the public in anyway you needed to get someone who was willing to do it and AGREE (meaning giving permission) to let the picture be shown to the public. if cameramen have to ask if people if they feel comfortable going on camera for something as simple as just to ask them a question for their view on a topic, then you have to get permission to put up a pic like this from the person you are exploiting

    Report Post » Angel_light  
    • soybomb315
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:14pm

      i guess we better shut down 90% of the magazines that exist today.

      Report Post » soybomb315  
    • Mimi24
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:58pm

      It looks like only the liberal left have rights now. If you are a conservative woman then they can portray you however they see fit. If your children happen to see you years later then oh well. I know that he will pay one day soon for what he did. Doesn’t help S E Cupp much right now though.

      Report Post »  
    • TheSoundOf Truth
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 9:55am

      Soybomb, everyone knows the national inquirer is BS, right?

      They even have a disclaimer in small print in their magazine as “entertainment” not journalism.

      So why do they have a budget to pay off people who sue them?

      Magazines get sued all the time by celebrities, and it never goes to court because they settle for damages out of court.

      Pick any hollywood a-lister, say, Kate Hudson. Publish explicit photos of her giving an handy-j to say, Strom Thurman, and state that she is a *whore* because of her political views and how she gives money to politicians.

      The lawsuit you’d get would be through the ROOF. This happens all the time. There is a double standard in our society that if you don’t “Get in line” with mainstream opinion, you are fair game.

      But, someone like Susan Powers, whom is Cass Sunstein’s wife (hey, long bright red hair and well developed bosom-not bad, eh?) is off limits; Why is that?

      Flynt’s article was to single out SE Cupp for her political view points. Period.

      No, don’t ban ALL SATIRE. But something has to be “satirical” in order for it to be “satire”. Jonathan Swift: Satire. Hustler‘s article on SE with a phallus in her face because she disagrees with Flynt’s opinions: Not Satire.

      Report Post » TheSoundOf Truth  
  • dsind
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:48pm

    seriously,
    can i photoshop the pres and sell his pics in a mag?

    Report Post »  
  • GrumpyCat
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:46pm

    Satire doesn’t trump copyright. At the very least a photographer somewhere owns the copyright on the original picture of S.E. Cupp, and its likely Hustler didn’t acquire those rights.

    Report Post »  
  • sasquatch08
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:46pm

    The Judge is correct here, in my opinion.

    There’s nothing seditious or dangerous to the public about this image.

    Slander? Defamation? Nah. As pointed out in the article it’s too over the top for anyone to actually believe.

    Besides, what’s funny to one person is not to another. Some people found the cartoons of Muhammad to be hilarious while others wanted to murder the artist. I’m sure some liberals are yucking it up about this. Like the late George Carlin said “…besides who‘s to say what’s funny?”

    Is this crude and disgusting? Yes. Actionable in court? No. As MRBUTCHER pointed out: “Satire is meant to provoke. Humor is a secondary concern.”

    Report Post »  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:00pm

      Question though; if it turns out somehow that the article and photo were meant to bring harm to her reputation, disclaimer or not, could she then have a case to bring against them for deliberate malice on Hustlers part?

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • soybomb315
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:22pm

      @Snowleopard
      If that were to happen….Couldnt Hustler make the case that it is an accurate representation of her employment at theblaze? When you watch real news, it is obvious she is there for her looks

      Report Post » soybomb315  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:59pm

      it would be libel.

      IMO, the judge is wrong though he said “unlikely”

      i would say “maybe” a winnable case, his comparison to the Falwell case is poor.

      The S E pic is a realistic photoshop in the context of the Hustler publication is “believable”. In Falwell it was a written article which was not “believable”

      So IMO, on the test of believability the S E “libel” claim is a stronger case but who knows what the courts would do.

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
  • Banter
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:40pm

    “Legality aside, Kelly McBride, a journalism ethics instructor at the Poynter Institute, said there are ethical considerations when publishing such a photo — considerations she suspects Hustler, as a pornographic magazine, doesn’t subscribe to.”

    Kelly, I think you can paint all of the msm with this brush. I hope you can keep your job, as I suspect journalism ethics classes will be phased out, since the great non-vetting of obama killed journalistic integrity.

    Report Post » Banter  
  • momrules
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:36pm

    Let’s just face it. The left uses their brand of comedy and satire to be as offensive as they can possibly be to any conservative in their crosshairs.

    We know it is not funny. We know why they are doing it and what kind of mind comes up with it. They are laughing with glee at all the attention Flynt is getting and the filth he is getting away with because they know there is nothing that can legally be done.

    The hypocrisy of the left astounds me but this newest example of the debauched state of the liberal mind will not stop them from crying their collective outrage the next time a conservative dares to say something that they can claim to be offensive.

    Report Post »  
    • MrButcher
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:48pm

      There in lies victory.

      Freedom is always good.

      It shows people for what they are.

      Ya gotta roll with the punches.

      Report Post » MrButcher  
    • vox_populi
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:48pm

      How the hell are you blaming all the Left for this? How is Hustler Magazine some sort of mainstream liberal news outlet? I mean, really. Plenty of left-wing groups have denounced this photo, what else do you want?

      Report Post » vox_populi  
  • BeingThere
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:19pm

    Sorry Judge, but I strongly disagree. There was no photo in the Falwell case. We‘re in a different age now and that photo will be out there forever and it won’t always have the disclaimer with it. This needs to go to the supreme court, it is NOT free speech. I’m a Photoshop whiz, I could put a penis in the mouth of every traitor that voted for Obamacare and flood the internet with them but I won’t lower myself to their level … probably!!

    Report Post » BeingThere  
    • soybomb315
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:35pm

      we would be better off as a country if everyone who voted for obamacare were shamed like that

      Report Post » soybomb315  
  • RepubliCorp
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:18pm

    Larry Flynt….. Obama has two daughters. Bet you don’t have the balls.

    Report Post » RepubliCorp  
    • sasquatch08
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:40pm

      Oh please, the reason they did this is because they knew they’d draw a reaction and get publicity but there was a 0.0001% chance of violence over this.

      If you did this to Michele Obama or her daughters your building would burn and you’d be murdered.

      Violence is a main characteristic of the far left, restraint is a characteristic of most of the right.

      …with the exception of far right militia types, but those people don’t know who Cupp is, nor would they care about this issue if they did. They’re too busy hating Jews, blacks, hispanics and other non-whites to care about Hustler.

      Even the violent lunatics on the far right don’t murder political opposition; they’re too busy plotting to kill other people for no apparent reason.

      Report Post »  
    • From Virginia
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:57pm

      sasquatch08 – Oh Puh-lease! Name a far-right group that has ever committed any violence on our soil.

      And just for semantics sake, the true meaning of far-right-wing would be an anarchist (which has been taken over by leftwing drop outs) since the right-wing wants small government and logically EXTREMIST-right-wingers would want NO government.

      Report Post »  
  • seeker9
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:16pm

    Sounds like libs have found a new avenue of attack. Ally themselves with Hustler, have them smear any “enemy” (donor, conservative woman or man, etc.). Any objection would do more for distribution of the smut than the actual publication. Chicago politics of extortion/blackmail?

    Report Post » seeker9  
    • dsind
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:51pm

      and the lettermans and stewarts will keep it going.

      Report Post »  
  • marcus_arealius
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:10pm

    I think I saw a video of Al Gore being raped by an Orangutan. Or was that Joe B? It’s hard to tell one idiot from another …

    Report Post »  
  • homekeeper
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:08pm

    As has been said in other areas, let them do this same type of “satire” with Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton and let’s see how that turns out. I’m so tired of the liberals barking about things but when it happens to the conservatives there is nothing heard but a bale of a hay passing through a ghost-town. I mean really, makes me sick to the see the hypocrisy with this administration, media and other liberal outlets.

    Report Post »  
  • MrButcher
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:06pm

    Flynt has every right to say and do whatever he wants (as do we all.)

    If he wants to be a misogynistic buttwipe, that is his right.

    This helps conservatism more than it harms it.

    No conservative should seek to boycott, ban or sue.

    Flynt wants the same reaction he got out of that bloated idiot Falwell 30 years ago. Do not give it to him.

    SE Cupp has handled this provocation with the utmost class. THAT speaks volumes.

    Report Post » MrButcher  
    • dadadadio
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:05pm

      I agree, SE’s best option is to rise above this quickly and move on, with, as you say ‘class’. If she can let it go, there’s an upside for her. The photo will rapidly fade from memory, while this smart, gutsy, and classy girl with a great future becomes better known for who she really is, and soars.

      Meanwhile, Larry Flynt continues to wallow in muddy hog slop. He will die a pathetic phlegmatic, smelly death, probably sooner than later. SE’s gonna win this.

      Report Post » dadadadio  
  • Brem
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 9:59pm

    The solution is to do the same thing to all prominent liberal women and then watch the phony media try to spin it

    Report Post »  
  • Git-R-Done
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 9:58pm

    Using a fake image of somebody else without their permission is NOT freedom of speech.

    Report Post »  
    • MrButcher
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:10pm

      Yes it is!

      Do not let your emotions get the better of you.

      Report Post » MrButcher  
    • soybomb315
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:37pm

      ok dude, better take down all those cartoon clips on youtube that make fun of obama

      Report Post » soybomb315  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:46pm

      Except this involves nudity and trying to falsely portray her as a sex object is NOT freedom of speech.

      There have been lawsuits over using someone else‘s face without that person’s permission and put on another person’s body as slander.

      Report Post »  
    • soybomb315
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:01pm

      if it is legal for newsweek to run that picture of michelle bachmann, then this is legal as well

      Report Post » soybomb315  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 6:10am

      Git-R-Done “There have been lawsuits over using someone else‘s face without that person’s permission and put on another person’s body as slander.”

      Not when it’s a public figure who puts her face on television every chance she gets.

      Report Post »  
  • beverlee
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 9:56pm

    May I say I disagree with the legal experts. Freedom of speech is one thing. If he had satirically written that she was having sex with Obama then I would not balk. However, not only will this photo float around the web forever, it will not have that little note attached saying “hey, I’m not real.” The written word is ease to dispell on the web, a photo is not. This needs to go to court, photoshopping is getting out of hand everywhere. In the mid-90′s I had to take the ex-wife out of a photo because the official wanted it. What happens when government starts doing this to official photos…it alters history.

    What if someone uses an altered photo as “proof” they were somewhere else when a crime occured. Who would know? Time will tell.

    Report Post » beverlee  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on May 25, 2012 at 6:07am

      If the photo is republished without the permission of the copyright holder then he is not responsible. Despite the widespread that this will inevitably be recirculated around the internet, I still have not been able to find an uncensored copy of it online to see whether it really looks convincing enough to be mistaken for the real thing. This indicates to me that Hustler’s lawyers are making some effort to control its dissemination, which makes the probability of a successful lawsuit more remote.

      Report Post »  
  • soybomb315
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 9:38pm

    If Cupp were to try to sue Hustler, it would be hypocritical. For instance, all the conservatives defended that newspaper that published those mohammad cartoons.

    Be a real conservative, criticize the hell out of them and let the free market decide

    Report Post » soybomb315  
    • RepubliCorp
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:03pm

      Mohammad isn’t a real person

      Report Post » RepubliCorp  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:09pm

      So what if someone used an image of you without your permission?

      Report Post »  
    • soybomb315
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:10pm

      Depends on who it is and what it is used for – why such a vague question? I definately wouldnt go complaining to the nanny state looking for them to save me

      Report Post » soybomb315  
    • soybomb315
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:12pm

      And for your information, if hustler put a picture of men on the front with a johnson in my mouth – i would thank hustler for making me an instant celebrity. I could probably make a few thousand dollars off it.

      S.E. Cupp is getting the kind of publicity she could never dream of. For her, it is perfect

      Report Post » soybomb315  
  • ddg7
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 9:37pm

    Can anyone photoshop a picture of Obama, Holder, Van Jones, Sharpton, and Jackson beating a white family?

    Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 9:52pm

      While I don’t like stooping to their level .. I would have to say “game on”.

      Report Post »  
    • RepubliCorp
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:06pm

      How about Holder shooting Brain Terry

      Report Post » RepubliCorp  
    • Banter
      Posted on May 24, 2012 at 10:24pm

      @Republicorp

      Since that one is actually true, it would just be good journalism.

      Report Post » Banter  
  • woodyb
    Posted on May 24, 2012 at 9:35pm

    I thought satire was supposed to be funny!!!

    That was nothing but VILE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love