Adventures of Larry Flynt
[Larry Flynt was never a stranger in court,as the nation’s “prince of porn,” or in his own description,a “pornographer,” for he and his magazine were sued many a time,and several of which found their way into the Supreme Court of the United States.At one time when he tried to speak for himself,but the Court assigned him one against his wishes,he shouted in the Court,“You are nothing but either dumb assholes,and one token cunt.” Chief Justice Warren Burger pointed at him and said,“Arrest that man.” The bailiff didn’t know what to do but wheeled him away,as no one ever recalls for anyone to be arrested in the Supreme Court.]
In another confrontation with a judge in court,the infuriated judge said to him,“I’m sentencing you to six months in a federal psychiatric prison!” the judge yelled,according to Flynt’s account.“Now get out of my courtroom!”
“Motherfucker – is that the best you can do?” Flynt responded.
“No! I’m making that twelve months!”
Flynt yelled back.“Listen,motherfucker,is that the best you can do?”
“Fifteen months!” the judge declared and stormed into his chambers.
Flynt served his sentence in two different prison facilities: Springfield,Missouri,and Butner,North Carolina.Hardly a model prisoner,the federal correctional system was glad to be rid of him when his time was up.
While Flynt was serving his prison term after his run-in with Judge Real,Hustler ran a satirical piece in its November 1983 issue that parodied a widely publicized ad campaign.Campari,the liqueur maker,ran a series of ads in major magazines that asked various celebrities to describe their “first time” with Campari.The titillating sexual double entendre was obvious and ripe for satire.Hustler put together a humorous version of the Campari “first time” ad,featuring the Reverend Jerry Falwell,leader of the Moral Majority.Flynt considered Fal-well “one of America’s biggest hypocrites,” and the Hustler ad had the holy man describing his “first time”– in an outhouse with his mother “drunk off our Godfearing asses on Campari,ginger ale,and soda” and “Mom looked better than a Baptist whore with a $100 donation.” In small print at the bottom of the page was the message: “Ad parody – Not to be taken seriously.”
But Reverend Falwell did take it seriously.He was so offended he filed a $45 million lawsuit against Flynt and his magazine.Ironically,the preacher hired Norman Roy Grutman,a New York attorney who regularly represented Bob Guccione and Penthouse.Grutman filed a complaint in Falwell’s backyard,the U.S.District Court for the Western District of Virginia.In the complaint,Falwell claimed that the parody ad had used his name and likeness without his permission,that its content had libeled him,and that it had by intent inflicted emotional distress upon him.Judge James Turk was slated to hear the case in Roanoke.
Grutman deposed Flynt while he was still serving his sentence,and by Flynt’s own admission,he was “sick,drugged,angry,and overcome with pain.” His turmoil was reflected in his hostile,non-responsive answers.Knowing that this could be damaging to their case,Flynt’s lawyer,Alan Isaacson,filed a motion to throw out the deposition on the grounds that Flynt was in a manic-depressive rage that day as well as under the influence of strong medication.
Isaacson filed a second motion at the same time,claiming that Falwell’s attorney had paid one of Flynt’s former bodyguards $10,000 to swear that he had witnessed the Hustler publisher declaring that he intended to “get Falwell.”Judge Turk rejected both motions.
At the trial,Jerry Falwell took the stand and portrayed himself as a deeply religious “teetotaler” with a kind and saintly mother.Questioned by Grutman,Falwell conveyed the suffering he had endured as a result of the Campari parody.Later in the trial,conservative United States Senator Jesse Helms testified as a character witness,calling Falwell a “moral exemplar.”
When Flynt took the stand,his pain was under control and he was anything but the wild man he had been at his deposition,answering questions rationally and calmly.Isaacson asked him if it was his intention to damage Falwell with the Campari parody ad.
“If I wanted to hurt Reverend Falwell,” Flynt testified,“we would do a serious article on the inside [of the magazine] and make it an investigative expose and talk about his jet or whether he has a Swiss bank account.If you really want to hurt someone,you print something that is believable.”
In giving his instructions to the jury,the judge threw out the charge of illegal use of Falwell’s name and image.The jury deliberated for only one day and came back with a split decision.While they found that the Campari parody had inflicted emotional damage on the plaintiff,it also found that the ad had not libeled Fal-well.The jury awarded him $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.(https://www.daowen.com)
Flynt breathed a sigh of relief.The fines were a “slap on the wrist” compared to what they could have been,and the amount was a drop in the bucket for the multi-millionaire publisher.But Flynt was more interested in the principle at stake,so he immediately appealed the decision,once again risking financial ruin in defense of his First Amendment rights.
“Full of B.S.”
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit,considered Flynt’s appeal,but on August 5,1986,refused to overturn the lowercourt’s decision in the Falwell case.Flynt was outraged.As he writes in his autobiography,“For the first time in a major case,the court upheld the concept that liability could be predicated on mere intent to inflict emotional distress,even though the published material was neither libelous nor an invasion of privacy.” If this decision stood,the press would have to tread lightly when presenting material about public figures,and would have to withhold information to avoid defamation suits.Flynt was not about to let this happen,so he pressed on and exercised his right to request an en banc hearing,in which all members of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals would hear his case,but the court decided by a one-vote margin not to rehear the case.
There was only one place left for Flynt to go: the Supreme Court,where his foul-mouthed antics the previous year had gotten him arrested for contempt of court.His attorneys filed a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision,and on March 20,1987,it was granted.
William Rehnquist was now Chief Justice,and he had a record of voting against the press in First Amendment cases.Recognizing the importance of Flynt’s case,the mainstream press – reluctantly at first – threw their support behind him.Friend-of-the-court briefs were submitted,first by the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Richmond News Leader,then by the Times Mirror Company,the New York Times Company,the American Newspaper Association,the Magazine Publishers Association,the Virginia Press Association,the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists,the Authors League of America,the ACLU,HBO,and political satirist Mark Russell.
The courtroom was overflowing with spectators on the day that the Supreme Court heard Flynt’s case.Both Falwell and Flynt were in attendance,but this time Flynt behaved and let his attorney,Alan Isaacson,do the talking.As is customary,each side was given 30 minutes to present its case,with the justices questioning the attorneys as they went along.
“There is public interest in having Hustler express its view that what Jerry Falwell says ...is B.S.,” Isaacson argued.“And Hustler has every right to say that somebody who’s out there campaigning against it,saying ...we’re poison on the minds of America ...is full of B.S.”
The Court’s decision was not published until a year later on February 24,1988.It was unanimous – 8-0 – in favor of Flynt.
Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in his opinion: “The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.Indeed,if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense,that consequence is reason for according it constitutional protection.For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.”
The decision made it clear that public figures who were presented in parodies and satires could not sue simply because their feelings were hurt.
William Rehnquist (1924～2005),U.S.Supreme Court Chief Justice (1986～2005),Nixon’s appointee as Associate Justice (1972),was the most conservative justice on the Court,especially over civil rights matters.
[1]Under Virginia law,in an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct (1) is intentional or reckless;(2) offends generally accepted standards of decency or morality;(3) is causally connected with the plaintiff’s emotional distress;and (4)caused emotional distress that was severe.[See Womack v.Eldridge (1974),note by editor.]
[2]Neither party disputes this conclusion.Respondent is the host of a nationally syndicated television show and was the founder and president of a political organization formerly known as the Moral Majority.He is also the founder of Liberty University in Lynchburg,Virginia and is the author of several books and publications.