The People vs. Larry Flynt (1996)

Jim Grimshaw: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Quotes 

• Isaacman : [Addressing the Supreme Court]  Mr. Chief Justice and, may it please the court one of the cherished ideas, that we hold in this country is that there should be uninhibited public debate and freedom of speech. Now, 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 citizen of this country to freely express his views.

  Chief Justice William Rehnquist : But, what was the view expressed in Exhibit A?

  Isaacman : Well, to begin with this is a parody of a known Campari ad.

  Chief Justice William Rehnquist : I understand. Go ahead.

  Isaacman : Okay. Also, and more importantly, it was a satire of a public figure, of Jerry Falwell. Who in this case, was really 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

  Chief Justice William Rehnquist : But, what is the public interest you're describing? That there is some interest in making him look ludicrous?

  Isaacman : Yes. Yes, Your Honor, 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 BS. And, 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 it poisons the minds of Americans, who in addition has told people that 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 BS. 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 then most people would like to be brought to.

  [laughter] 

  Isaacman : I apologize, I know I'm not supposed to joke, but that's sort of the point.

  Justice Scalia : Mr. Isaacman, the First Amendment is not everything. I mean, it's a very important value, but it's not the only value in our society. What about another value that says good people, should be able to enter public life, and public service. The rule you give us says that 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 you committing incest with her, in an outhouse? Now, do you think that George Washington would have stood for public office if that was the consequence?

  Isaacman : It's interesting you mentioned George Washington Justice Scalia because very recently I saw a political cartoon that's over two hundred years old it depicts George Washington riding on a donkey being led by a man and the caption suggests this man is leading an ass to Washington

  Justice Scalia : I can handle that, I think George can handle that but that's a far cry from committing incest with your mother in an outhouse. I mean, there's no line in-between the two?

  Isaacman : No, Justice Scalia, I would say there is no line between two, because really what you're talking about is a matter of taste, and 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 for us that this is a matter of taste and not a matter of law, because they've said that there is no libelous speech, that nobody could reasonably believe that Hustler was *actually suggesting* that Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother.

  Justice Thurgood Marshall : So why did Hustler have him and his mother together?

  Isaacman : Hustler puts him and his mother together as an example of literary travesty, if you will.

  Justice Thurgood Marshall : And what public purpose does this serve?

  Isaacman : Well, it serves the same public purpose as having Gary Trudeau say that Reagan has no brain, or that George Bush is a wimp. It let's us look at public figures a little bit differently. We have a long tradition in this country of satiric commentary. Now, 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. And, imagine if you will, suits against people like Gary Trudeau, and Johnny Carson for what says on The Tonight Show tonight. Obviously, when people criticize public figure, they're going to experience emotional distress, we all know that. It's the easiest thing in the world to claim, and it's impossible to refute, and that's what makes it a meaningless standard. Really all it does is allow us to punish unpopular speech, and this country is founded, at least in part, on the firm belief that unpopular speech, is absolutely vital to the health of our nation.