The People vs.

Larry Flynt
Sousa 1

The People vs. Larry Flynt

Lauren Sousa
Professor Gardner
ComS 152
03/19/15

The People vs. Larry Flynt

Sousa 2

In ancient Rome, a person could be punished by excisions of the tongue (Tedford,

2013), for speaking out against political and religious figures. Known today as defamation,
both slander (spoken), and libel (written or published) words against someones character, which
affects their reputation, can be a large concern for many. Despite the First Amendment stating
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press many cases throughout
the United States history have made it to the United States Supreme Court to determine how free
Americans speech or the use of the press truly is. The film The People vs. Larry Flynt shows a
great depiction of the dramatization involved in the famous United States Supreme Court case
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, which helped determine todays standards on defamation for public
figures in satirical publication. Facing religious backlash due to the content of his magazine,
Flynt has to prove himself innocent of libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress
charged brought on by Reverend Jerry Falwell.
The film opens up in Cincinnati, Ohio, where Flynt and his brother own Hustler Go-Go
Club, a nudie bar in a fairly religious town. In order to make more money, they decide to take
erotic pictures of their girls, and Hustler Magazine is created. In contrast to the then-current
pornographic magazines available, which only show breasts and bum shots, Flynt pushes the
limit by photographing full vaginal shots and other erotic posses. By doing so he not only makes
Hustler an immediate million-dollar company, he simultaneously fuels the religious fervor of the
community, who find his magazine to be completely inappropriate and obscene.

The People vs. Larry Flynt

Sousa 3

Due to the nature of Larry Flynts wealth and fame, throughout the film he finds himself
having to continuously defend Hustler Magazine and his constitutional right as a publisher,
under the First Amendment, to exercise freedom of the press, no matter how erotic or X-rated the
community deems his magazines content to be. In 1977, Flynt is arrested for pondering
obscenity, and organized crime: with his conduct deemed as lewd and shameful (Forman, 1996).
Infamous for behaving in an irrational manor, regardless of his surroundings (in this case he is in
a courtroom being judged for his crimes), his argument for America for a Free Press falls
short, as the judge finds him guilty for all accounts (Forman, 1996). In 1978, Flynt then flies to
Georgia to combat the new law banning the sale of his magazine. He invites a news crew to
broadcast the stunt of him selling one of his magazines (to one of his employees, as no one in the
town would sell or buy Hustler under the law), and he is again arrested (Forman, 1996). Outside
of the Georgia courthouse, the serious anti-Hustler feelings are demonstrated, as both he and his
lawyer Alan Issacman are shot, in an attempt to kill Larry Flynt, as a show of outrage towards the
publication of obscenity and sex. The shooter is never apprehended, while Flynt becomes
paralyzed from the waist down.
Although Larry Flynts first two arrests are significant indicators that the freedom of
press is not being extended to Hustler Magazine, both lead up to the most important freedom of
speech issue of the film: defamation. Having had been a continuous target of religious leaders
and the community members, Hustler Magazine publishes a satirical ad, placing the prominent
Reverend Jerry Falwell in one of their Campari ads, which interviews celebrities about their
first times(Tedford, 2013). The full page parody (which Hustler discloses was to be taken as
such) stated that during Jerry Falwells interview, he confessed that his first time was with his
own mother, in an outhouse, implying that he was drunk, and formicating with his own mother

The People vs. Larry Flynt

Sousa 4

(Tedford, 2013). Shocked and utterly disgusted by the ad, Jerry Falwell sues Larry Flynt for
libel and intentional infliction of emotional damages caused to his character, asking for forty
million dollars. Flynt then counter sues Falwell for copyright infraction, as the reverend had
used photocopies of the Campari ad during one of his fundraising campaigns.
In order to contest the charges brought up by Reverend Falwell, Flynt appeals to the U.S.
District Appeal Court. The argument used to protect the speech was the fact that Falwell had
been voted The second most admired American behind President Reagan by Good
Housekeeping Magazine (Forman, 1996). This fact alone was compelling enough to determine
that no reasonable person would believe that the Hustler ad truly described Jerry Falwells
character or actions (Forman, 1996). Despite Falwell appealing to the lewdness or level of
obscenity the ad included, if no reasonable person found the Hustler print to be true, there could
be no libel claim against Larry Flynt. He was however, still responsible for two hundred
thousand dollars worth of damages based on intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In 1988, the Flynt case eventually made it to the United States Supreme Court and they
ruled against the U.S. District Appeals Courts decision to have Flynt pay Falwell damages of
two hundred thousand dollars due to emotional distress. The court seemed to have made an
appropriate verdict. Just as the religious communities had the right to lash out against Hustler
Magazine, Flynt too had the right to create a satire about Reverend Falwell as a public figure. In
a vote of 8 to 0, the court ruled that public figures must prove actual malice, and that satire was
not grounds for intentional infliction of emotional distress charges, as our country had a long
history of satire, similarly rejecting the punishment of outrageous speech (Tedford, 2013).

The People vs. Larry Flynt

Sousa 5

While Hustler Magazine was found not guilty of defamation in the twentieth century, had
this case been presented during the colonial era, it would have had a different outcome. First, the
level of obscenity printed in Hustler Magazine alone would have been enough to shut him down,
as church officials would have argued that the reverends morality was being challenged, an
occurrence which tends to disturb the civil order of society (Tedford, 2013). This type of
behavior would never have been allowed. Furthermore, with regards to Falwells defamation
charge, the courts would have taken the libel- or printed material as most serious, as it would
have been widely distributable, and there for more damaging to Falwells character (Tedford,
2013). Luckily for Flynt, he was also tried at a common law court, rather than an ecclesiastical
court, which saw defamation as a spiritual offense (Tedford, 2013).
Overall, The People vs. Larry Flynt gives a good depiction of the dramatization of the life
of Larry Flynt, and his struggle to print sexually erotic and sometimes outrageous political
material under the protection of the First Amendment. Having to face continuous resentment and
a near fatal response from religious fanatics, the film showed how far Flynt was willing to go to
protect his rights to publication. This film was a great example of the challenges sometimes
amounting from exercising freedom of the press, as Flynt almost lost everything to the
defamation case. The only part that the film lacked was not showing the argument that Falwell
and his attorney came up with at the Supreme Court hearing. Had this case not gone to the
United States Supreme Court, a precedent may have been set which would render much of the
political satire in America as libelous.

The People vs. Larry Flynt

Sousa 6

References
The People v. Larry Flynt [Motion picture]. (1996). United States: Columbia Pictures.
Tedford, T., & Herbeck, D. (2013). Freedom of Speech in the United States (7th ed., p. 9-449).
Pennsylvania: Strata Publishing.