Do I need to say again that I really like this movie? [Here's Part I] Here’s the court scene from this movie, where Alan Isaacman defends Larry Flynt in the Supreme Court of United States. This is Larry Flynt vs Jerry Falwell (an admired and respectable religious figure in United States
Alan Isaacman:
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.
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 United States
(About Exhibit A), ...it was a satire of a public figure of Jerry Falwell, who in this case, was a prime candidate for such a satire because he's such an unlikely person to appear in a liquor ad.
This is a person we are used to seeing at the pulpit, Bible in hand preaching with a famously beatific smile on his face.
Supreme Court:
But what is the public interest you're describing? That there is some interest in making him look ludicrous?
Alan Isaacman:
Yes, there is a public interest in making Jerry 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.
Hustler magazine has every right to express this view. They have the right to say that somebody who has campaigned actively against their magazine who has told people not to buy it, who has publicly said that it poisons the minds of Americans, who, in addition, has told people 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.
(Laughter in the Court)
I know I'm not supposed to joke, but that's sort of the point.
Supreme Court:
Mr. Isaacman, the First Amendment is not everything. It's of very important value, but it's not the only value in our society. What about another value which says that good people should be able to enter public life and public service?
The rule you give us says if you stand for public office or become a public figure in any way you cannot protect yourself or, indeed, your mother against a parody of your committing incest with her.
Do you think that George Washington would've stood for public office if that was the consequence?
Alan Isaacman:
It's interesting that you mention George Washington, Justice Scalia, because very recently I saw a XYZ-year-old political cartoon. It depicts George Washington riding on a donkey being led by a man, and the caption suggests that this man is leading an ass to Washington
Supreme Court:
I can handle that. I think George can too.
But that's a far cry from committing incest with your mother in an outhouse.
There's no line between the two?
Alan Isaacman:
No, Justice Scalia, I would say there isn't, because you're talking about a matter of taste, not law. As you yourself said, I believe, in Pope vs. Illinois
The jury has already determined that this is a matter of taste, not of law because they've said there's no libelous speech - that nobody could reasonably believe that Hustler was actually suggesting Falwell had sex with his mother.
So why did Hustler have him and his mother together?
Hustler puts him and his mother together in a example of literary travesty, if you will.
Supreme Court:
And what public purpose does this serve?
Alan Isaacman:
The same public purpose as Garry Trudeau saying Reagan has no brain or that George Bush is a wimp. It lets us look at public figures a little bit differently.
We have a long tradition in this country of satiric commentary.
If Jerry Falwell can sue when there has been no libelous speech purely on the grounds of emotional distress then so can other public figures.
Imagine, if you will, suits against people like Garry Trudeau and Johnny Carson, for what he says on The Tonight Show.
Obviously, when people criticize public figures they're going to experience emotional distress.
We all know that.
It's easy 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.
This country is founded, at least in part on the firm belief that unpopular speech is vital to the health of our nation.
After the court proceedings, Alan Isaacman calls Larry Flynt at his home.
Alan Isaacman:
It's Alan. They just brought the decision in.
Larry Flynt:
Well, is it good or bad?
Alan Isaacman:
It's a unanimous decision. Rehnquist wrote it himself.
"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas.
Freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty but essential to the quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. In the world of debate about public affairs many things done with motives that are less than admirable are nonetheless protected by the First Amendment."
Larry Flynt:
So we won.
Alan Isaacman:
Yes. We won.
Well, commenter:
ReplyDeleteNice try.
Your cheap tricks will not work here.
As I said earlier, you are entitled to say what you want to say - I will not shut you up. However, it does not mean I would publish it on my blog.
[I have maintained that personal attacks, swear words will not be published on this blog. That's my decision. Its does not mean you cannot start your own blog to fill it with personal attacks and abusive words].
And posting it as Anonymous? (Talk about accountability)
Sujai: It is the same logic as Mr Maqbul Fida is free to make nude Hindu paintings but is not free to make similar paintings of his own religious figures. Similarly, Mr. Flynt is free to say anything about Mr Falwell and his mother but would not tolerate anything about himself and his mother.
ReplyDeleteThe movie clearly shows that it is just a case of revenge. Since Falwell said bad things about Hustler so Hustler would say even worse things about Falwell.
ReplyDeleteThink about all the mud that will just keep going around if revenge chains like this start going. May be some pigs just like to live in mud.
"People vs. larry Flynt" was a good example. Porn as such is pretty harmless and a small issue compared to the major issues regarding freedom of speech in this world, a la religion, homosexuality, Islam, lord Rama, genocide etc.
ReplyDeleteI have a few questions.
1. What if someone tries to incite hatred or violence through his/her freedom of speech?
2. Should not there be a modicum of decency and decorum in "speech"? Don't you think society has set a standard of decency in speech so that all discussions do not disintegrate into/result in slanging matches involving mothers and body parts? Because then nothing meaningful can come out of the "speech"
3. What about spreading false facts through free speech? Shouldn't there be a stop on that?
Unfortunately, most people in this world, even in the United States of America, are not tolerant, open-minded, rational, critical thinkers. They wear their hearts on their sleeve, or should I say lips. Everybody likes to silence someone speaking/writing words they don't like or agree with, by shouting louder of by using force, defamation, violence.
In my opinion, freedom of speech should come with added responsibility, sensitivity and honesty on the speakers side; and tolerance, maturity and the ability to think rationally on the side of the audience.
Anonymous:
ReplyDelete(Good that you still wish to remain anonymous – it’s so easy to write any gobbledygook being anonymous, right?)
Sujai: It is the same logic as Mr Maqbul Fida is free to make nude Hindu paintings but is not free to make similar paintings of his own religious figures.
Did I ever say on this blog that MF Husain is NOT FREE to paint his own religious figures?
(Please keep your warped logic with you. Don't try to rub it onto me.)
Similarly, Mr. Flynt is free to say anything about Mr Falwell and his mother but would not tolerate anything about himself and his mother.
Who said that Flynt would not tolerate anything about himself and his mother?
Tolerating dissent or rebuke or scandalous allegations is different from publishing it on your own magazine. Yes, Flynt MAY not publish it on his magazine (or MAY BE he will – you can ask him directly). It does not mean others cannot publish it. Falwell was free to criticize Flynt and Hustler magazine in all his speeches. Flynt did not object to it.
While I would not publish your comment on my blog (because it is crass), I would not stop you from publishing any devious thoughts you can come up with on your blog (or another blog which allows people to vent out such statements).
Definitely, you completely missed the point (clearly shows).
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteThink about all the mud that will just keep going around if revenge chains like this start going. May be some pigs just like to live in mud.
Again, you miss the point. Just because there will be mud-slinging, shall we curb freedom of expression? Just because some pigs like to live in mud, shall we stop people from living in the mud?
Ayan Roy:
ReplyDelete1. What if someone tries to incite hatred or violence through his/her freedom of speech?
Inciting violence could mean trampling on other people’s rights and safety (if one can make the case as such) and hence, you are free to speak as long as you do not take life of others, or you do not damage material possession of others (does not include hurt sentiments because there is not limit to that).
Fomenting hatred falls on a thin ground. It is highly subjective to decide if a hate speech will lead to trampling other people’s rights and safety.
2. Should not there be a modicum of decency and decorum in "speech"?
There should be. But it need not be legally sanctioned. As he says in this movie, it’s a matter of taste, not of legality.
Don't you think society has set a standard of decency in speech so that all discussions do not disintegrate into/result in slanging matches involving mothers and body parts?
That standard need not be legally sanctioned. It can be a self-imposed restraint where certain groups do not allow other groups to cross the line. The way parents forbid their kids from speaking indecent language at home. But sanctioning against such language by sending the child to jail or arresting him for using abusive language at home or taking a legal action against the child is something altogether different.
We are not discussing personal or a group’s morality here.
Because then nothing meaningful can come out of the "speech"
Yet, I see the debates in US to be more mature and rational in US compared to speeches made by Indian politicians and how they beat each other up in the Parliament. Their (USA) freedom to publish Hustler magazine has someone not made their debates less meaningful.
3. What about spreading false facts through free speech? Shouldn't there be a stop on that?
Spreading false facts can be challenged in courts – as the case is made in this movie. The case in this movie is not a matter of libelous propaganda but a matter of bad taste.
Unfortunately, most people in this world, even in the United States of America, are not tolerant, open-minded, rational, critical thinkers.
Hence, the legal system, the courts, the constitution and other institutions of constitutional democracy to ensure that ‘we will not snub debate even if we don’t like that debate’.
In my opinion, freedom of speech should come with added responsibility, sensitivity and honesty on the speakers side; and tolerance, maturity and the ability to think rationally on the side of the audience.
Yes, that’s a wish. It’s my wish too. I can enforce it in my own home and on my blog. However, I would not like this to be enforced by law. Because the sad consequence of such a law is the usurpation of the freedom itself [That is the message of the movie].
Yet, I see the debates in US to be more mature and rational in US compared to speeches made by Indian politicians and how they beat each other up in the Parliament. Their (USA) freedom to publish Hustler magazine has someone not made their debates less meaningful.
ReplyDeleteSHOULD READ AS:
Yet, I see the debates in US to be more mature and rational compared to the speeches made by Indian politicians. Check out how they beat each other up in the Parliament. Their (USA's) freedom to publish Hustler magazine has somehow not made their debates less meaningful.
Sujai: Mr Maqbool Fida would not paint his mother the same way he painted Saraswati. To paint someone's mother in a way that suits your taste is not the society we would like to live in and I am sure is not the society you would like to live in. If someone's sense of humor or taste needs a mother to be made fun of - it better be someone's own mother and not Falwell's.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
ReplyDeleteSujai: Mr Maqbool Fida would not paint his mother the same way he painted Saraswati.
Are you discussing hypocrisy, bad taste or legality?
[Ask yourself this question once again. It will save both of us lot of trouble].
To paint someone's mother in a way that suits your taste is not the society we would like to live in
Why not?
That is the whole point of this exercise. Sometimes we may not like what we hear, but yet, we tolerate it, so as not to suppress that voice.
Here is what Alan Isaacman says (in the movie):
We live in a free country.
That is a powerful idea. That's a magnificent way to live. But there is a price for that freedom, which is that sometimes we have to tolerate things that we don't necessarily like.
You have missed the main point of the argument here.
and I am sure is not the society you would like to live in.
How can you be sure on my behalf? That’s a little too much to assume.
As I said, you are free to go ahead and write about me, all in bad taste in the most egregious manner, and most probably I will get upset. But I will not bring down the walls through legality that will suppress your voice.
If it is a false allegation, I will take you to court [You will have to reread the articles, or just watch the movie.]
If someone's sense of humor or taste needs a mother to be made fun of - it better be someone's own mother and not Falwell's.
Why this constraint?
Again, ask yourself this question, are you discussing hypocrisy, bad taste or legality?
Are you discussing hypocrisy, bad taste or legality?
ReplyDeleteI do not know what you call it Sujai. If the advertisement creates hatred, pain and suffering in the world then that advertisement is not worth it. I do not know what kind of people get entertained by making fun of someone's mother. Even if it gives some sadists a temporal tickling, collectively it is creating pain, which no sane person could support. I do not care how you stop that insanity, by making everyone understand the hypocrisy behind it or by creating laws. I guess laws are created for that certain part of the society that does not have any conscience.
- A buddhist who wishes for universal happiness (including Sujai's)
Sujai,
ReplyDeletere: political debate in the US, you might want to check out a book called "No Debate" by George Farah. Makes for interesting reading and hits the bullseye. ;)
Glad you finally saw this movie. What did you think of Courtney Love's performance? :D
If the advertisement creates hatred, pain and suffering in the world then that advertisement is not worth it.
ReplyDeleteThat is the whole point of discussion here. What upsets the other person cannot be the legal basis for curbing freedom of expression. Because there is no limit to what can emotionally hurt someone. There is no universal agreement on what constitutes emotional distress when someone writes, paints, speaks or sings. That is the whole point. What if a religious groups contends that they are emotionally hurt each time a rocket is launched into space and then go about protesting that all space launches should be stopped henceforth. How do we reason such things?
Imagine if someone contends that every humorous movie is actually making fun of another and hence distressing another and therefore all humorous movies should be banned.
Imagine if someone contends that every criticism is actually distressing another and hence all criticism should be stopped.
There is no limit to what constitutes emotional distress, and therefore as Alan Isaacman says:
Obviously, when people criticize public figures they're going to experience emotional distress.
We all know that.
It's easy 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.
This country is founded, at least in part on the firm belief that unpopular speech is vital to the health of our nation.
You said:
I do not know what kind of people get entertained by making fun of someone's mother.
Some sick and perverted people.
Even if it gives some sadists a temporal tickling, collectively it is creating pain, which no sane person could support.
Do no support it – therefore do not promote it. At the same time, what we are saying here is, do not ban it, or stifle it. Here is what Alan Isaacman says:
I don't like what he does.
But what I do like is that I live in a country where you and I can make that decision for ourselves. I like that I live in a country where I can pick up Hustler magazine read it if I want or throw it in the trash, if that's where I think it belongs. Or I can not buy it.
You said:
I do not care how you stop that insanity, by making everyone understand the hypocrisy behind it or by creating laws.
Again you miss the whole point (Did I say this a million times already?)
The whole idea is NOT TO STOP it.
Chirkut:
ReplyDeleteYou have an amazing propensity to irritate someone.
When did I say that I watched this movie for the first time?
Imagine if someone contends that every humorous movie is actually making fun of another and hence distressing another and therefore all humorous movies should be banned.
ReplyDeleteIt is called common sense. If one could not tell a difference between "sex with mother" and a stand-in comedian, I am not sure what to say. Also, I am not saying ban those, I am just saying I condemn those and not eulogize and encourage those like this Blog does.
As I said, you are free to go ahead and write about me, all in bad taste in the most egregious manner,
No matter where you go with your Blog, I will never do that. That is the difference between Flynt and me, that is the difference between you and I. I break the cycle of hatred.
- Buddhist wishing universal happiness.
Chirkut:
ReplyDeleteYou have an amazing propensity to irritate someone.
Just like the person being discussed in this post irritated some folks? :D
Your comment, when looked from another angle could be that you, Sujai, have an amazing propensity to be irritated easily. ;)
Take deep breaths and do some yoga. And thank Hinduism while you let go of your irritation.
When did I say that I watched this movie for the first time?
You mean you saw it more than once? My mistake - I only thought you saw it recently, not that you saw it for the first time.
BTW, check out the book I mentioned earlier on the "meaningful" political debate in the US.
Buddhist:
ReplyDeleteIt is called common sense. If one could not tell a difference between "sex with mother" and a stand-in comedian, I am not sure what to say.
That is the whole point (Did I cross the billionth mark already?)
You think common sense is common. We think that common sense is not common. You think there is some standard rule by which we can measure all populations of the world in terms of their sense of humor, sensibilities, parody, irony, satire, sarcasm, criticism, etc. We think that there is none. We believe it is highly subjective to place and time.
What is considered OK in the West now, such as flag-wearing bikini model, is considered abominable in India. Also, within a country, people have different views on what a standup comedian can joke about.
Also, I am not saying ban those, I am just saying I condemn those and not eulogize and encourage those like this Blog does.
You still don’t get it, do you?
[You realize why I get exasperated and I write off most of the commenters? That’s because I did not take it up as a mission on my blog to increase their IQ or reasoning abilities and yet they push me to do that.]
I did not eulogize Larry Flynt or Hustler. I eulogized the movie which brought out the case. I eulogized the system which took a reasonable decision.
I do not encourage comments about mothers – that’s why I rejected your comment (I believe it was your comment) – in which you described my mother in obscene ways. That is the whole reason I moderate this blog to keep nasty comments like those out.
Over and out!
Sujai
ReplyDeleteGreat post. You take your time in posting on your blog. But you come up with real good ones. Worth reading every word.
To me, it brought a lot of clarity on the question of how far law should go in enforcing morality in the domain of responsible free speech. I wholeheartedly support the stand in the movie. Taste is not an objective criteria for law. Emotional distress is not a good enogh basis for a claim in law. But I think few people have the intellectual capacity to appreciate the distinction between legality and morality. Most people tend to intertwine each other in their thoughts. It took me a while to get the difference. Most importantly it took a while to appreciate that the one who stands for the non-involvement of the legal mechanism is not condoning the immoral act.
Keep 'em coming.
~ Vinod
I do not think that this movie is as great as it is being made out to be.
ReplyDeleteFor all his pretense of having taken up a bold subject, the director has actually picked a completely non-controversial subject. No one in the US seriously believes that pornography should be banned. In this, the director is simply going ALONG with popular sentiments not AGAINST. As soon as the so called conflict starts in the movie, the final outcome is known. Director is aware of this fact and has tried to bring in issues of incest etc. to build some tension in the movie, but the climax still remains a foregone conclusion. If the director wanted to build some real tension, he could have taken some really controversial subject say for example Larry is shown as a publisher of a rabidly racist anti-black magazine and his right is defended. Instead director has taken a safe path by choosing a non-controversy and presenting it as a big controversy requiring hard introspection where none is required.
It is easy to be liberal when no real issues are at stake and this movie does precisely that. The real commitment to the first ammendment would have been demonstrated if the director took a really controversial issue that went against the grain of popular opinion and then defended it. As it is, it is just a feel good movie pandering to the self-congratulatory instinct of an average american viewer. Nothing more.
Sarve bhavantu sukhinah
ReplyDeleteSarve santu niraamayaah
Sarve bhadraani pashyantu
Maakaschit duhkha bhaag bhavet
May all be happy! (sukhinah)
May all be free from disabilities! (niraamayaah)
May all look (pashyantu)to the good of others!
May none suffer from sorrow! (duhkha)
- Buddhist wishing universal happiness.
My conjecture is that freedom is not a universal value in the Indian setup. It is value which is held useful in a certain context , just like every other value. Right to property is ok, in a certain context, right to freely associate with another individual is ok , in a certain context.
ReplyDeleteIt is even more true in case of societal norms, such as ambition , love , respect for public spaces where each of these ideas is held to be important , but restricted by other values in changing circumstances.
At the base of it lies a conflict between arbitrary community coercion and a life dictated by the rule of law. As a nation, we do not seem to have made a clean cut choice as to which idea we want to adopt.
Vivek:
ReplyDeleteAre you looking at this as fiction?
Because this case is quite famous and you can read the details at Wiki.
I saw this movie sometime back and was disgusted by the dysfuntionality it portrayed(drugs,AIDS et al). But the overriding theme of the movie was good. It defended the rights of the lowliest creatures on Earth to hold onto their views and express it. And defending that right is very important though the process can be quite nauseating.
ReplyDeleteI think Vivek Behal is partly right. If the movie had focused on the rights of a right winger to express his opinion (however degrading that maybe,opposed to public opinion and hurting people's sentiments) it would have been more credible. But yeah the movie is a good attempt.
India has a long way to go in this regard. If a movie like this was made here it would most likely be banned and the real life protagonist would probably have been driven out of the country.
rags, Vivek Behal:
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I follow what you guys are saying.
This movie is based on real events.
Then why should the filmmaker makeup some other civil liberties' story?
Are we saying that we will appreciate a fictitious story better just because it is more interesting, compared to a real story just because it is not controversial enough?
Sujai said:
ReplyDeleteAre we saying that we will appreciate a fictitious story better just because it is more interesting, compared to a real story just because it is not controversial enough?
You know what, this may sound real cheap but that is exactly what I meant. But yeah a director is free to do what he wants. It's his movie after all. I know you don't agree with me but thats just my opinion.