The People vs. Larry Flynt Page #10

---

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

with this filth monger myself

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

is that there should be

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

in allowing every citizen

of this country

to freely express his views.

But what was

the view expressed in Exhibit A?

Well, to begin with, this is a parody

of a known Campari ad.

- 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

in having Hustler magazine

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

has a First Amendment right

to publicly respond

to these comments

by saying that Jerry Falwell

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.

What about a value which says

good people can enter public life

and public service?

The rule you give us says

that if you stand for public office

or become a public figure

you cannot protect yourself

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.

It depicts George Washington

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.

Now, if Jerry Falwell can sue

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

to punish unpopular speech.

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?

To support people who believe

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

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes