The People V Larry Flynt Summary

The People v. Larry Flynt

In the film The People v. Larry Flynt, there are several notable court cases that tap into the issue of free speech. The main speech that caught my attention was the Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Throughout this paper I will show an understanding of the issues in this particular case, including the speech issues, arguments that support the speech, arguments that suppress or punish the speech, issues I agree with in the case, and how the case may be different in a different time period. Also, I will give a short review of how I might direct or construct the film different. This was an critical case to protect our 1st Amendment right to free speech and how Larry Flynt helped protect that.
In the case Hustler Magazine

v. Falwell, in November 1983 Hustler magazine published a parody of the famous Reverend Jerry Falwell.

In the parody the Reverend was claimed to have lost his virginity to his own mother. The Reverend distraught over this interpretation of him sued Hustler magazine for defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Falwell won the emotional distress and was awarded damages in the sum of $200,000. Hustler magazine appealed the case, soon after the Supreme Court sided with Hustler Magazine 8-0.
Some of the arguments that protect the defamation issue in the case are that no reasonable person would believe such a thing. If we go back to the case of New York Times v. Sullivan, this case set the precedent of public figures. This was a remedy to having someone that is a public official from collecting damages for slander or libel. Falwell was indeed a public figure being he was very well known throughout

the country and even had his own radio show. He would have to demonstrate actual malice to the courts for this case. Actual malice is that the publisher had knowledge of the falsity and had a reckless disregard for the truth. Falwell could not attest to both of these. It is fairly obvious that Hustler magazine had knowledge of the falsity and acted with no regard to the true nature of Reverend Falwells relationship with his mother. It was thought that he should not be protected by virtue of most knew of his character and that such material spoke about him could not possibly be true. These circumstances all held that Hustler magazine was using their 1st Amendment right to free speech. There was also a disclaimer in the article that let people know that it was for entertainment purposes only and should not be taken seriously. I agree with the courts and why they would throw this particular claim out. His fame was so known throughout the country that no one in his or her right mind would accept the article as anything other than satire and since the law states that messages that would not deem to be true are not worthy of a defamation conviction. As a result he was deemed a public official and he was open to public scrutiny even if it was distasteful.
However, in the case of intentional infliction of emotional distress he could use the false light or misappropriation claim.

Both of these led to the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress that Reverend Falwell was claiming. There was a clear false light as the truth about what was said was clearly distorted by claiming that his mother took his virginity. Also, his name was misappropriated by having it attached to an article that could soil his name as a good Reverend of the people. This tort he claimed inflicted emotional distress and therefore he should be compensated. Supporting arguments for protection of this speech are that there is a public interest of the people to shape a story like this that would make him someone seem foolish sort of similar to a political cartoon. This could also be said that he is a figure of the public that the people of this country have discerning opinion about. The speech in this case was more of a matter of taste. Since it was already ruled that the Reverend was a public figure he has to be open to the criticism that he may face on the public stage. In other words, people are not always compelled to agree with what you say and you must be able to bear with such criticism. By awarding the Reverend damages you are awarding unpopular speech and as a public figure he was not protected from this unpopular speech. If the court were to decided that he was to be awarded damages there would be lawsuits against countless different publications

that mocked public figures in an unflattering light.
There is no doubt that the speech in question could have been considered extremely vulgar in nature. Arguments that support the suppression of the speech could be an “outrageous standard”; because the said speech was so extreme it may have had an adverse effect on its audience. Few would assume if you were a fan of Reverend Falwell then you would be deeply offended by the advertisement.
There is no doubt that the speech said in the advertisement distressed Falwell deeply, however he was held to a standard higher than the average citizen. For these reasons he cannot sue for emotional distress just because he finds this subject offensive. I agree with the courts rulings for the reasons that he was too well known and therefore open for public scrutiny. It may not be right what was said about him, however 1st Amendment speech in such circumstances should be protected so that not just every Tom, Dick, and John can sue a publisher for something that is intended for entertainment purposes.
If this advertisement were published during World War II or prior it would have been a whole new set of circumstances for the court. I believe that they would have found in favor of Falwell instead of Hustler magazine. The reasons why are that there hadn’t yet been the precedent set by New York Times v. Sullivan. This established the actual-malice test that was so decisive in the case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. As such the Reverend would not be considered a public official under the old standard of defamation. Prior to the Times v. Sullivan there was three basic conditions that must be met to establish your case. The first was that the message was damaging to the reputation of the person. This could easily be ascertained in this case on the grounds that the Reverend was showing in such an unflattering light. The second condition was that the defamatory statement must be communicated to a third party. This was easily demonstrated considering it was a widely published and distributed magazine that anyone of age could buy. The third part of the test if the person being defamed was identified. Obviously, if you read the satire wrote in the publication he is identified by name so this fits the test. For Hustler magazine to prove their innocence they also have three common-law defenses that can be demonstrated. The first would be that what was published is the truth. I would have a tough time thinking that anyone on the jury would reasonably assume that Reverend Jerry Falwell lost his virginity to his mother. Another defense is that the said person’s reputation was already so tarnished it could not be further harmed. This also doesn’t seem likely seeing as most would interpret his reputation as being a good one. The third defense is that the magazine was privileged under the law to say such material. I believe that Jerry Falwell would’ve won this case easily. He could demonstrate that all of the above criteria were met and therefore would have won.
In the film The People vs. Larry Flynt, I felt the dramatization of the characters was genuinely well done. The star of the film Woody Harrelson whom portrayed Larry Flynt was on point throughout the movie. As a character actor, he had to go through an immense deal of transitions as time elapsed in the film. From his transition of progressing through all of the different court cases and how various different characters in the film tried to assassinate his character he kept his character focused. Courtney Love portrayed Althea Leasure, Larry Flynt’s wife in the film. Her portrayal as a drug addicted belligerent woman was undoubtedly well done. However, this was probably the role that she was meant to play. Life is sometimes stranger than fiction, overall though it was a superb portrayal of a woman that seemed to have lost control of her life. Allen Issacman, played by Edward Norton, was Larry Flynt’s lawyer in the movie. Edward Norton played this role unquestionably well as a result of the interactions with him and Woody Harrelson. You could feel the tension that the two had in their interactions throughout the movie. It also brings a sense of what their relationship may have been like. Him being a lawyer stood by Flynt the whole time, even though Flynt had become an extremely difficult client to maintain and handle. Overall, it was an entertaining movie that had vast historical implications with the court cases that Mr. Flynt went through. However, with most biopics you only tend to only receive one side of the story and having a character such as Larry Flynt, who was so universally hated it would’ve been fair to bring a few different views. Also the chemistry between Woody Harrelson and Courtney Love also seemed lacking throughout the movie. It could be the way that the director wanted it seeing as they were both heavily sedated for a great portion of the film.

Bibliography

The people vs. Larry Flynt [Motion picture on DVD]. (1997). Columbia TriStar Home Video.

Tedford, T., & Herbeck, D. (2013). Freedom of Speech in the United States (7th ed.). State College: Strata Publishing.