Want HD quality instead of ads? Get Pro
To watch in HD, get ClipCafe PRO
But what's the public interest you're describing
Unmute video

Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court one of the cherished ideas is that we hold...

Something wrong with the clip?

Quote

Isaacman: [Addressing the Supreme Court] Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court one of the cherished ideas is that we hold in this country is that there should be uninhibited public debate and freedom of speech 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 their views Justice Scalia: What was the view discussed in exhibit A? Isaacman: To begin with this a parody of a known Campari ad Justice Scalia: I understand Isaacman: Also it was a satire of a public figure of Jerry Fallwell who in this case who really a prime candidate for such a satire because his such an unlikely person to appear in a liquor ad this is a person we're used to seeing at the pulpit The Bible in hand preaching with a famously beatific smile on his face Justice Scalia: But what's the public interest you're describing? There's some interest in making him look ludicrous? Isaacman: Yes there is public interest in making Jerry Fallwell look Ludacris in so far there is public interest in having Hustler Magazine express the point of view that Jerry Fallwell is full of BS and Hustler Magazine has every right to express this view they have the right to say to somebody who has actively campaigned against our magazine who has told people not to buy it who has publicly said it poisons the minds of Americans who in addition told people sex out of wedlock is immoral that they shouldn't drink Hustler Magazine has a first amendment right to respond to these comments by saying "Jerry Fallwell is full of BS", it says lets deflate this "stuffed shirt" and bring him down to "our level", "our level" in this case admittedly a lower level than most people would like to be brought to Chief Justice William Rehnquist: The first amendment is not everything, 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 enter public life and public service? The rule you give us if you stand for public office or become a public figure in any way you cannot protect your or indeed you mother in a parody of committing incest with her in an outhouse, do you think George Washington would have stood for public office if that was the consequence? Isaacman: It's interesting you mentioned George Washington 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" Chief Justice William Rehnquist: 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 there's no line in-between the two? Isaacman: No I would say there is no line between the two but what you're really talking about is taste and not law as you yourself said in Pope vs. Illinois, "it useless to argue about taste 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 law because they've said there's no libelous speech nobody could reasonably believe that Hustler Magazine was suggesting that Jerry Fallwell had sex with his mother Justice Thurgood Marshall: So why did hustler him and his mother together? Isaacman: Hustler puts him and his mother together as an example of "literary travesty" Justice Thurgood Marshall: What public service does this serve? Isaacman: It serves the same public service in having Gary Trudeau say "Regan has no brain or that "George Bush is a wimp" it lets us look at public figures a little differently we have a long tradition in this country of satiric comedy if Jerry Fallwell can sue when there's no libelous speech purely on the grounds on emotional distress then so can other public figures imagine lawsuits against Gary Trudeau and Johnny Carson for what he says on The Tonight Show every night obviously when people criticize public figures their going to experience emotional distress we all know that it's the easiest thing in the world to claim and impossible to refute and that's what makes it a "meaningless standard", really all it does it allows us to punish unpopular speech and this country is founded at least in part firm belief that unpopular speech is absolutely vital to the health of our nation


Transcript

because he's such an unlikely person to appear in a liquor ad. This is a person that we are used to seeing at the pulpit, Bible in hand, preaching with a famously beatific smile on his face. But what is the public interest you're describing? That there is some interest in making him look ludicrous? Yes. There is a public interest in making 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 B.S. And Hustler magazine has every right to express this view. They have the right to say that somebody, who has campaigned against our 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 B.S. 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 than most people would like to be brought to. I apologize. I know I'm not supposed to joke, but that's sort of the point. Mr. Isaacman, the First Amendment is not everything. It's a very important value, but it's not the only value in our society. What about a value which says good people can enter public life and public service? The rule you give us says that if you stand for public office or become a public figure, you cannot protect yourself or indeed your mother against a parody of your committing incest with her in an outhouse. Do you think George Washington would've stood for office if that was the consequence? It's interesting you mention Washington, Justice Scalia, because very recently, I saw a political cartoon that's over 200 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. 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 between the two? Uh... No, Justice Scalia. There is no line between the two. Because what you're talking about is a matter of taste, not law. As you yourself said, I believe, in Pope v. 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 there's no libelous speech. Nobody could believe Hustlerwas suggesting that Falwell had sex with his mother. So why did Hustler have him and his mother together? Hustler puts him and his mother together in an example of literary travesty, if you will. And what public purpose does this serve? It serves the same public purpose as having Gary Trudeau say Reagan has no brain or that George Bush is a wimp. It lets us look at public figures a little differently. We have a long tradition in this country of satiric commentary. Now, if Jerry Falwell can sue when there's been no libelous speech, purely on emotional distress, then so can other public figures. Imagine suits against people like Gary Trudeau and Johnny Carson, for what he says on The Tonight Show tonight. Obviously, when people criticize public figures, they're going to experience emotional distress. We know that. It's the easiest thing to claim and impossible to refute. 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. Thank you, Mr. Isaacman. Reverend, are you confident you will win this case? Absolutely. There's no way the Supreme Court will come down on the side of a sleaze merchant like Larry Flynt. Mr. Keating, why are you here today? To support people who believe pornography should be outlawed. - Because if the First Amendment will protect a... What did Grutman call me? Scumbag. Scumbag like me, well, then it will protect all of you. Because I'm the worst. Larry, do you have any regrets? Only one. Larry. Larry. Larry. Hello? It's Alan. They just brought the decision in. Well, is it good or bad? Well, it's a unanimous decision. And Rehnquist wrote it himself. Is it good or bad? I want you to hear this. "At the heart of the First Amendment, is the recognition of the importance of the free flow of ideas. Freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty, but essential to the quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. In the debate about public affairs, many things done with less than admirable motives, are nonetheless protected by the First Amendment." So we won. Yes, we did. We won. Thank you, Alan. Thank you. Don't mention it. We won, baby. Strip for me, baby. Why? So when you're old and ugly, you can look back at this. I'm never gonna be old and ugly, Larry. You're gonna be old and ugly.

Clip duration: 759 seconds
Views: 329
Timestamp in movie: 00h 00m 00s
Uploaded: 12 December, 2020
Genres: drama
Summary: Larry Flynt is the hedonistically obnoxious, but indomitable, publisher of Hustler magazine. The film recounts his struggle to make an honest living publishing his girlie magazine and how it changes into a battle to protect the freedom of speech for all people.


Comments

You can comment anonymously or Log In
No comments yet 🧐 Be the first!

Actors