GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

Sometimes you find an article that really speaks to you and this one has done just that for me so I wanted to share it with you guys/ladies.

Regards
NastyJack

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry Flynt Speaks Out

I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak with you today because the future of our country is in your hands. I am often asked if the Founding Fathers had had Hustler Magazine in mind when they originally drafted the Constitution of the United States. No, I don't think they did, but what I do think they had in mind was the individual citizen's unrestricted right of free choice -- the cornerstone of the First Amendment -- from which its vitality and meaning derive.

I find it troublesome that we have had free speech for so long that it's lost its value. The First Amendment is intended to protect all speech, no matter how offensive. If your comments are not going to offend anyone, you don't need the protection of the First Amendment. Establishment publications like the New York Times and the Washington Post do not need these protections. These matters are sometimes overlooked when considering what free speech is all about.

Freedom of speech is not only the unrestricted expression of the thought you love, but also the thought you hate the most. Although we live in a nation where the majority rules, democracy only works when individual rights are exercised. Without considering individual rights, democracy is totally worthless. Here's a perfect example: You can't have five hungry wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper, because the sheep is going to lose every time. I know. I've been that sheep a few times. We pay a price for everything in life, and the price we pay to live in a free society is toleration. We have to tolerate things that we don't necessarily like so we can be free. Freedom is not lost in one fell swoop. It is lost a book at a time, or a movie or a magazine.

Not so long ago in this century there was a man who, long before he started exterminating the Jews, put censorship at the top of his agenda. So when this madman started burning books, he didn't start with the classics. No, he started with pornography and the so-called garbage that ?nobody? wanted to read, and eventually Voltaire and Shakespeare were going up in smoke. Do you want another good example of a society with really screwed-up priorities? In America it is legal to publish the most violent photograph showing a decapitated mutilated body on the front page of a newspaper. On the other hand, if you publish a photo of two people making love, you can go to jail. We are living in a country that condones violence and condemns sex. Since sex is so prevalent even in non-pornographic venues -- Madison Avenue advertising especially comes to mind -- you think we would make an effort to understand it a little bit better. Other than the desire for survival, sex is the strongest single driving force that we have.

It is easy for me to understand why the act of sex has become so political. The Church has had its hand on our crotch for over 2,000 years, and the government is exceedingly moving in that direction -- figuring that if it can control our pleasure center, it can control us. Now that we are moving into the era of wireless communication, the ruling class has a new problem. You see, the rich and the privileged have always had their leather-bound editions of pornography ever since the Middle Ages. But today the local book and video store have become the poor man's art museum. Regardless of how uncomfortable pornography makes the ruling class, they can never take it away. If you drove across America and could look into dresser drawers of so many millions of homes and could see all the X-rated videos, sex toys and other adult paraphernalia that people willfully enjoy, you would find widespread expression of an inalienable right: that what people do in the privacy of their home is their own personal business. There is nothing wrong with moral values if they work for you and your family. It's time for me to part company when you try to impose them on others. A person's lifestyle, sexual attitude and preference are his or her own business.

Over the years my most ardent foes have been the Religious Right and radical feminists, whose only claim to fame has been to urge a bunch of ugly women to march. Their dialogue hasn't changed in the past 30 years. Don't get me wrong. I put feminists in two categories: I have no problem with the women's movement per se. I support it completely - equal rights, equal pay, nondiscrimination in the workplace - but I think the radical feminists, who are on the fringe, do not speak for the majority of female Americans.

Something else disturbs me deeply. Many of the individual's rights and civil liberties gained in this century by rulings of the very liberal Warren Court of the 1950s and `60s have been placed in jeopardy by the current New Conservative Supreme Court. Even more disturbing is citizens' apathy to that menace. Throughout our history, some truly great things have come from the judicial system. I'll never forget Justice Renquist's words in my case against the Reverend Jerry Falwell. Speaking for the majority who decreed that parody was protected speech, he stated simply that because the government finds speech offensive does not give it the right to suppress it.

I would like to take this opportunity to clear up another misconception: the difference between pornography and obscenity. They are not synonymous. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has said this; pornography has been around ever since cavemen began drawing erotic etchings on the walls of their caves. Obscenity is like the concept of sin; it defies definition. What one person might find objectionable is not to another. Justice Douglas said it best: What is obscene is better left in the minds of man. Obscenity is a legal definition. Pornography, in itself, is more acceptable than it has ever been in our society. What determines if it is obscene or not is the interpretation of the courts of the land.

Over the years I have really been let down by the mainstream media. I finally won Flynt v. Falwell in 1988, the most important First Amendment case of this century, with the possible exception of the New York Times v. Sullivan in1964. At its beginning the media gave my case very little coverage, but if you look at Jay Leno's monologue, or David Letterman's or any skit on Saturday Night Live, you will find that they are much more on the cutting edge today than they were ten years ago. You can bet it's because their lawyers are standing in the background and saying that they can say whatever they wish because of the landmark case Larry Flynt won.

When Falwell initially sued me and Hustler Magazine, I could not get support from anyone. When I was at the trial level and when I lost at the Circuit Court of Appeals, I could not get anyone to file a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court. No one wanted to associate themselves with me. Moreover, they did not think the Supreme Court would consider the case when the High Court agreed to hear oral arguments. Then, in a quick reversal, all of the mainstream media came on board to file their amicus briefs because they realized that if I lost, they too would be adversely affected.

I'm sure most of you are curious about the current flurry of publicity caused by my exposé of hypocrisy among our elected officials, demonstrating that it crossed party lines and that no one has a monopoly on it. During my crusade to expose hypocrisy on Capitol Hill, there was a much larger effort on my part that was totally ignored by the media. I wanted to provide a voice for the 70 percent of Americans who felt that President Clinton should not have been impeached. I think I did that in a very profound way and with very little help from the media. We all turn our nose up at checkbook journalism, but rest assured that this 24-hour media frenzy which we are presently involved in is going to come to just that. Establishment news organizations will be paying for information the public is clamoring to know, and some of them are now doing it indirectly.

The greatest right that any nation can afford its people is the right to be left alone. If I have any legacy to leave it would be that I fought to expand the perimeters of free speech and toleration.