Larry Flynt.
Is he an upstanding(or sitting down) citizen of first amendment rights, or some jerk who makes fun of people and oppress’ women?
Hm. Having read his magazine exactly one time, I’d side with Pervert. Only Oliver Stone could try to make him a hero.
He has a “right” to publish it. And I’ll keep faithfully skipping it. Works for me. 
I’m pretty sure it was Milos Forman who was responsible for “The People vs. Larry Flynt”.
I don’t know about the “oppresses women” part- all the women who “pose” for his magazine do so voluntarily. BHut he is a jerk who makes fun of people. Hustler contains some of the most misogynistic, racist, and in-poor-taste humor I’ve come across. The pictures seem classy in comparison.
Can I change “come across” to “read” in my last post?
I think you had it right the first time. ROFL! 
Regardless of personal opinions of the man you have to admit that the two options you put up are NOT mutually exclusive.
Dpr is right–he’s both.
When I was a teenager, I came across an issue of Hustler (from 1978, I think). The back was filled with ads like “Pre-teen Climax,” and “My Two Little Girls” movies. Tons of that shit.
Also, there was all sorts of Nazi stuff. Swastika flags, pictures of Hitler and the salute, etc.
Don’t forget about the cartoon “Chester the Molester.” Oh sure, molesting small children sure is funny.
Larry Flint is a racist, anti-semetic human depravity.
And so is Larry Flynt.
Not only are the two opinions of Flynt (perv and 1st Admendment champion) non-mutually exclusive, I’d say there’s a strong corollation between the two.
Who needs 1st Amendment protection more that those who offend? If everybody liked everything, we wouldn’t need the 1st amendment at all.
Well, Larry Flynt has the right to publish the magazine, women have the right to say yes or no to posing in it, and people have the right to say yes or no to buying it. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.
I’d never thought of that before: the fact that he could be a pervert and a freedom of speech advocate.
Of course, you don’t see him lobbying for others freedom of seech, just his magazines.
I was thinking of the time years ago when he published the assumption that Jerry Falwell had had sex with his(jerry’s) mother.
Of course, being public relations smart, Jerry called this to the attention of all media by making a fussa bout it.
Pervert? Yes. Jerk? Yes. Upstanding citizen? No. Don’t forget this is a guy who has been breaking laws since he was a kid. He’s also much less concerned about his country than he is aboutlining his own pocketbooks.
Now then, champion of the First Amendment. Well, yes and no. His fight for his rights have set major precedents that have certainly strengthened the Freedom of Speech.
Was that is goal? I don’t believe so. I believe his goal then and always will be to save his own hide and make money.
Actually, the irony of this episode was delicious! Flynt did an ad parody for vodka that had Falwell relating how he had done all sorts of perverted things. Falwell tried to sue for libel, but lost because it was determined that the content could no be taken by any reasonable person as being true and met the legal requirements for parody. BUT, in his fight Falwell reproduced the ad and sent it to thousands of his supporters, so Flynt sued Falwell for copyright violation!
Flynt is undeniably a pervert, but he has the right to free speech just like the bluenoses do.
quote:
Of course, you don’t see him lobbying for others freedom of seech, just his magazines.
quote:
His fight for his rights have set major precedents that have certainly strengthened the Freedom of Speech. Was that his goal? I don’t believe so. I believe his goal then and always will be to save his own hide and make money.
How often do you see anyone fighting for rights that aren’t also in their own interests?
My point is that he wasn’t necessarily fighting for any “constitutional” right at all. Just his own rights. He was only fighting to stay out of jail, to not have to pay damages, and to continue to make more money. It just happened that his only available weapon was the First Amendment.
I don’t see him jumping up in support of other First Amendment cases with either money or Amicus Curiae.
A feminist scholar (pro-porn) named Laura Kipnis devotes a fascinating chapter in her excellent book Bound and Gagged: Pornography and the Politics of Fantasy in America to Flynt. It’s a fascinating analysis of Hustler as cultural commentary.
I understood your point Gazoo, and I agree. All I’m saying is it’s rare to see someone champion the Constitution for it’s own sake. Generally they’re using it’s protections to defend their own interests.
But what about all the beige folks who fought for blacks civil rights?
divemaster wrote:
anti-semitic?