ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, January 16, 1997 TAG: 9701160012
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
``THE PEOPLE vs. Larry Flynt'' is unlikely to make many new friends for freedom of expression in America. The movie so graphically depicts the depravity of smutmeister Flynt's lifestyle and mind-set that it will appall many viewers. Those convinced that Hollywood uses the First Amendment as a license to titillate and trivialize will see the movie as evidence that they're right.
Even so, the strain that the entertainment industry puts on Americans' tolerance for free expression gives cause not just to criticize the industry and its products and values, but also to renew our commitment to defend our freedoms.
The Rev. Jerry Falwell, whose libel suit against Flynt and Hustler magazine led to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that is the reason for the movie's making, need not be concerned that the film makes a hero of his old nemesis.
Well-portrayed by Woody Harrelson, the clueless character on television's ``Cheers,'' Flynt comes across as the mentally addled pervert that he is. As his attorney, Alan Isaacman (played by Edward Norton), says toward the end of the film, Flynt's pretensions of patriotism and commitment to the Constitution are a no-sale. The pornographer is so obsessed with sleaze and flesh, and making money off same, that it's nigh impossible to believe his smarmy, pity-party passion to accomplish one good thing in his life.
Yet, as despicable as Flynt is, in the movie and in real life, he was the unwitting catalyst for one good thing.
That was the Supreme Court's bracing reminder to America in 1987 that the First Amendment isn't there only to protect bland speech, nice expressions and popular ideas. It also protects the offensive, the ugly, the hateful and the outrageous. And thank goodness. Otherwise the outraged, the oppressed and the opponents of conventional wisdom and political correctness could be effectively gagged and hog-tied. That could include Preacher Falwell.
The Supreme Court's '87 decision in the Flynt-Falwell case was - important to remember - not about pornography. It was about censorship.
At its center was a parody advertisement published by Hustler that depicted Falwell as a drunkard who had committed incest with his mother. A lower court, in Roanoke, had awarded Falwell $200,000 in compensation for ``emotional distress'' caused by the fake ad. Flynt's lawyers argued that the damage award, if upheld, would have a chilling effect on legitimate, protected speech, particularly satiric political commentary and cartoons - and the high court unanimously agreed.
The ad was crude and disgusting. Many parodies are, as anyone who's ever watched ``Saturday Night Live'' can attest. But if politicians and other public figures could collect damages for distress anytime anyone pokes fun at them, the drone of their own pompous, puffed up, often hypocritical and spurious speech would be ear-splitting - and, soon dangerously, the only sound we might hear.
``The People vs. Larry Flynt'' comes across, at times, less a celebration of free speech than a skin flick with a good story line. But its central message should not be lost: Censorship can do the nation more damage, and be more corrupting of our values, than anything pornographers can produce. Credit not Flynt but the Supreme Court for wisely recognizing that.
LENGTH: Medium: 60 linesby CNB