People vs Larry Flynt II

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). Background - Larry Flynt’s magazine ran an ad (with small print - "ad parody - not to be taken seriously") which suggests that Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother in an outhouse.

 

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 citizen to freely express his views.

(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 - "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 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.