Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell

Political cartoons characterizing public figures in a negative manner may find protection under the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has reiterated these protections in various decisions. Whereas a private individual may have greater recourse in defamation suits, public figures and officials may be used as the butt of jokes with greater freedom.

In cases involving political cartoons or parodies, a major factor used to deny public figures damages in libel suits, is the fact that the cartoon is clearly understood not to be true. The intent is to poke fun at or satirize the object in the cartoon or some behavior he or she exhibits. The cartoon may be considered offensive or outrageous by some, but this judgment is subjective in nature. The U.S. Supreme Court asserted that open discourse in the press about issues of public concern takes priority over protection to public figures from the "emotional distress" caused by political cartoons and the like.