![Find The People vs. Larry Flynt on Amazon](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTY3NjA3OTY2Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMjAyNjQxMTE@._V1_SX300.jpg)
The People vs. Larry Flynt Page #10
- R
- Year:
- 1996
- 129 min
- 798 Views
you f*** me with this circus act!
I won't do it again. I can't.
I'm not gonna do it in front of the
Supreme Court of the United States.
Your sentimental speeches
and your cornball patriotism
they don't work on me anymore,
Lar, because I don't believe you.
I don't believe you.
You're my
My friend, Alan.
We're friends.
You know, I just
I would love to be remembered
for something
meaningful.
Any research problems,
I encourage you to use my archives.
And
tell the reverend that I've dealt
and I wish to offer my support.
Is that the Tin Man?
Yes
that's the Tin Man.
God versus the devil. America's
minister versus America's pimp.
Today is the showdown.
Many were surprised by the high court's
decision to hear Flynt's case
but he had some unlikely
supporters filing briefs on his behalf:
The New York Times, the American
Newspaper Publishers Association
- and the Association of
- All rise.
The honourable, the chief justice
and the associate justices
of the Supreme Court
of the United States.
Oyez, oyez, oyez.
All persons having business before
the honourable U.S. Supreme Court
are admonished to draw
near and give their attention.
For this court is now sitting.
God save the United States
and the Supreme Court.
We'll hear the argument first
this morning in number 86-1278.
Hustler magazine and Larry C. Flynt
v. Jerry Falwell.
Mr. Isaacman, you may proceed
whenever you're ready.
Mr. Chief Justice,
and may it please the court.
One of the most cherished ideas
that we hold in this country
uninhibited public debate
and freedom of speech.
Now, the question you have
before you today is whether
a public figure's right to protection
from emotional distress
should outweigh
the public interest
of this country
But what was
the view expressed in Exhibit A?
Well, to begin with, this is a parody
- I understand. Go ahead.
- Okay.
Also, and more importantly,
it was a satire of a public figure
of Jerry Falwell, who was really
a prime candidate for such a satire
because he's such an unlikely
person to appear in a liquor ad.
This is a person that we are used
to seeing at the pulpit, Bible in hand
preaching with a famously
beatific smile on his face.
But what is the public interest
you're describing?
That there is some interest
in making him look ludicrous?
Yes. There is a public interest
in making Falwell look ludicrous.
Insofar as there is a public interest
express the point of view
that Jerry Falwell is full of B.S.
And Hustler magazine
has every right to express this view.
They have the right to say
that somebody, who has
campaigned against our magazine
who has told people not to buy it
who has publicly said it poisons
the minds of Americans
who, in addition, has told people
that sex out of wedlock
is immoral,
that they shouldn't drink
Hustler magazine
to publicly respond
to these comments
is full of B.S.
It says, "Let's deflate this stuffed shirt
and bring him down to our level."
Our level in this case
being admittedly
a lower level than most people
would like to be brought to.
I apologise. I know I'm not supposed
to joke, but that's sort of the point.
Mr. Isaacman, the First
Amendment is not everything.
It's a very important value, but it's
not the only value in our society.
good people can enter public life
and public service?
The rule you give us says
that if you stand for public office
or indeed your mother
against a parody of your committing
incest with her in an outhouse.
Do you think
George Washington would've stood
for office if that was the consequence?
It's interesting you mention
Washington, Justice Scalia
because very recently,
I saw a political cartoon
that's over 200 years old.
riding on a donkey,
being led by a man
and the caption suggests this man
is leading an ass to Washington.
I can handle that.
I think George can handle that.
But that's a far cry from committing
incest with your mother in an outhouse.
I mean, there's no line
between the two?
No, Justice Scalia.
There is no line between the two.
Because what you're talking about
is a matter of taste, not law.
As you yourself said, I believe,
in Pope v. Illinois:
"It's useless to argue about taste
and even more useless to litigate it."
And that is the case here. The jury
has already determined for us
that this is a matter of taste
and not a matter of law
because they've said there's no
libellous speech. Nobody could
believe Hustler was suggesting
that Falwell had sex with his mother.
So why did Hustler have him
and his mother together?
Hustler puts him and his mother
together
in an example
of literary travesty, if you will.
And what public purpose
does this serve?
It serves the same
public purpose as having
Gary Trudeau say Reagan has no
brain or that George Bush is a wimp.
It lets us look at public figures
a little differently.
We have a long tradition
in this country of satiric commentary.
when there's been no libellous speech
purely on emotional distress,
then so can other public figures.
Imagine suits against people like
Gary Trudeau and Johnny Carson
for what he says
on The Tonight Show tonight.
Obviously, when people
criticise public figures
they're going to experience
emotional distress. We know that.
It's the easiest thing to claim
and impossible to refute.
That's what makes it
a meaningless standard.
Really, all it does is allow us
And this country is founded,
at least in part
on the firm belief
that unpopular speech
is absolutely vital
to the health of our nation.
Thank you, Mr. Isaacman.
Reverend, are you confident
you will win this case?
Absolutely.
There's no way the Supreme
Court will come down on the side
of a sleaze merchant like Larry Flynt.
Mr. Keating, why are you here today?
pornography should be outlawed.
because if the First Amendment
will protect a
- What did Grutman call me?
- Scumbag.
scumbag like me,
well, then it will protect all of you.
Because I'm the worst.
Larry, do you have any regrets?
Only one.
Larry.
Larry.
Larry.
- Hello?
- It's Alan.
- They just brought the decision in.
- Well, is it good or bad?
Well, it's a unanimous decision.
And Rehnquist wrote it himself.
- Is it good or bad?
- I want you to hear this.
"At the heart
of the First Amendment
is the recognition of the
importance of the free flow of ideas.
Freedom to speak one's mind is not
only an aspect of individual liberty
Translation
Translate and read this script in other languages:
Select another language:
- - Select -
- 简体中文 (Chinese - Simplified)
- 繁體中文 (Chinese - Traditional)
- Español (Spanish)
- Esperanto (Esperanto)
- 日本語 (Japanese)
- Português (Portuguese)
- Deutsch (German)
- العربية (Arabic)
- Français (French)
- Русский (Russian)
- ಕನ್ನಡ (Kannada)
- 한국어 (Korean)
- עברית (Hebrew)
- Gaeilge (Irish)
- Українська (Ukrainian)
- اردو (Urdu)
- Magyar (Hungarian)
- मानक हिन्दी (Hindi)
- Indonesia (Indonesian)
- Italiano (Italian)
- தமிழ் (Tamil)
- Türkçe (Turkish)
- తెలుగు (Telugu)
- ภาษาไทย (Thai)
- Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
- Čeština (Czech)
- Polski (Polish)
- Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
- Românește (Romanian)
- Nederlands (Dutch)
- Ελληνικά (Greek)
- Latinum (Latin)
- Svenska (Swedish)
- Dansk (Danish)
- Suomi (Finnish)
- فارسی (Persian)
- ייִדיש (Yiddish)
- հայերեն (Armenian)
- Norsk (Norwegian)
- English (English)
Citation
Use the citation below to add this screenplay to your bibliography:
Style:MLAChicagoAPA
"The People vs. Larry Flynt" Scripts.com. STANDS4 LLC, 2024. Web. 30 Aug. 2024. <https://www.scripts.com/script/the_people_vs._larry_flynt_15739>.
Discuss this script with the community:
Report Comment
We're doing our best to make sure our content is useful, accurate and safe.
If by any chance you spot an inappropriate comment while navigating through our website please use this form to let us know, and we'll take care of it shortly.
Attachment
You need to be logged in to favorite.
Log In