From the Archives: Porn king Larry Flynt defends free speech in Charlottesville

Porn king Larry Flynt defends free speech in Charlottesville
November 6, 2011 9:24 PM MST

Self-described smut peddler and free speech advocate Larry Flynt appeared at the Virginia Film Festival in Charlottesville on November 4 to discuss the 1996 Milos Forman-directed film based on his life, The People vs. Larry Flynt. The screening was sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression.

Flynt had earlier spoken at the University of Virginia in November 2000 with his friend and courtroom adversary, the late Jerry Falwell, as part of a lecture tour in which they talked about the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), in which a unanimous court upheld Hustler’s right to engage in political parody even if the object of that parody (Falwell) had hurt feelings as a result.

That case originated after Hustler, one of many adult publications operated by Flynt, had run a satirical advertisement for Campari in which Falwell allegedly endorsed the liqueur and revealed that his first sexual experience was in an outhouse with his mother. Falwell sued for libel and lost, but won damages in a Roanoke federal court for “intentionally inflicted emotional distress.”

‘One Nation Under Sex’
After the film and discussion, Flynt autographed copies of his new book, One Nation Under Sex, for about 100 fans. The book, coauthored by David Eisenbach, looks at American history through the prism of the sex lives of presidents and first ladies.

As the crowd dispersed, Flynt answered questions posed by reporters from radio station WINA and the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner.

Noting that many people yearn for a simpler time when their own moral values seemed to be shared by the rest of society, Flynt said that “nostalgia affects people usually in a very positive way but the world goes on.”

What needs to be understood, he said, is that “the big thing is, you’ve got to accept the rights of other people. We pay a huge price in this country to live in a free society and we’ve got to tolerate things that we don’t necessarily like so we can be free.”

Reconciling religion with freedom
Flynt added that “unfortunately, my friend Jerry Falwell never seemed to be able to reconcile the Bible with people who wanted more individual freedom.”

Larry Flynt

Supporting the idea of moral values is fine, he said, “if they work for you or your family, but if they don’t, you should not seek to impose your values on other people.”

While Jerry Falwell is dead, his son continues to run Liberty University in Lynchburg, but Flynt is not impressed with that institution’s legacy or mission.

“I know that whole family,” he said. “I’m not looking to pick a fight with them [but] they bring people like Michele Bachmann to the college and the whole nation knows about it.”

Flynt chuckled and then trailed off as he shook his head ruefully: “If they’re holding Michele Bachmann up as an example of greatness, she makes people who find Sarah Palin challenging…”

Flynt’s dismissive tone indicated he does not hold either Bachmann or Palin in high regard.


Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on November 6, 2011. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Thomas Jefferson Center announces 2010 Muzzle Awards

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on April 13, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Thomas Jefferson Center announces 2010 Muzzle Awards
April 13, 2010 12:37 AM MST

Each year since 1992, the Charlottesville-based Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression (tjcenter.org) has presented the "Jefferson Muzzle Awards" to individuals or entities that have most egregiously offended freedom of speech and of expression. For the most part, award winners have been city or state governments or government agencies at every level, from Capitol Hill to school districts.

Today's announcement of the Muzzles coincides with Thomas Jefferson's birthday. He was born near Charlottesville on April 13, 1743.

Top 2010 Winner

The top winner for 2010 is U.S. Representative Alan Grayson of Florida, who tried to get the U.S. Attorney General to prosecute some of his constituents who made fun of him on a web site. Reacting to Grayson's complaint, the Thomas Jefferson Center wrote:

"Rep. Grayson’s urging the U.S. Attorney General to seek a 5 year prison sentence against a vocal critic for minor transgressions that, even if proven, clearly merits censure. The right to criticize public officials without fear of government reprisal is a fundamental component of the First Amendment. As such, elected officials should both expect and tolerate criticism."

Virginia's Winner
Although not as high up on the list, the Virginia Department of Corrections was also a Muzzle Award winner this year.

In this case (ranked ninth on the list of ten top winners), prison officials denied an inmate access to a CD recording of a religious sermon called "Life Without a Cross." The Department of Corrections was criticized by others at the time, including editorial writers for the Charlottesville Daily Progress, but the Thomas Jefferson Center's criticism was sharp:

"...it is difficult to see what purpose is served by a blanket policy censoring all spoken word CD’s while allowing musical CD’s. Indeed, it would seem that many spoken CD’s might better serve to encourage good behavior on the part of prisoners both while they are serving their sentences and after they are released."

The award citation notes that, in the months since this situation came to light, the Department of Corrections has changed its policy but -- as the Muzzle citation notes -- "there is nothing to bind the Department to staying on this course"

Other 2010 Muzzles
Another eight winners were cited as deserving of 2010 Jefferson Muzzle Awards, including the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, for censoring a nostalgic label on a wine bottle; the Oklahoma Tax Commission, for barring a driver from purchasing a vanity license tag with the phrase "IM GAY," claiming the words are "offensive"; and the Texas State Legislature, "for "denying motion picture production companies tax breaks if their proposed movies portray Texas or Texans in a negative fashion."

The full list of 2010 winners, plus archives of past Muzzle recipients, can be seen on the web site of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression.

From the Archives: 2012 Jefferson Muzzles bestowed for censoring speech, expression

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on April 11, 2012. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

2012 Jefferson Muzzles bestowed for censoring speech, expression
April 11, 2012 10:29 PM MST

As it has done each year for the past two decades, the Charlottesville-based Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression has handed out its Jefferson Muzzles to government officials and agencies who stretch their authority and stifle to speech of American citizens.

The Center is also the sponsor of the First Amendment Monument on Charlottesville’s downtown mall, which is sometimes ruefully called the “Free Speech Memorial.”

This year’s Muzzle winners – who may or may not accept their awards graciously – were listed in a news release made available just after midnight on April 12, one day before the birthday of the namesake of the Thomas Jefferson Center:

*The Florida Legislature and Florida Governor Rick Scott for passing the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act, a law restricting what Florida physicians may say to their patients regarding guns and gun safety.

*The U.S. State Department for rescinding the invitation to a Palestinian cartoonist to participate in a conference focusing on free speech because some of his cartoons were deemed to be anti-Semitic.

*Sam Houston State University (Texas) Professor Joe Kirk and the University Police Department for their respective actions involving a temporary campus “free speech wall” on which students were invited to write whatever they wanted. Professor Kirk literally cut the “F-word” from the wall where it was utilized to criticize President Obama. The university police then threatened to arrest any students who attempted to write the offending word again.

*Mayor Wayne Garner of Carrollton, Georgia for unilaterally canceling a previously-approved community theater production of The Rocky Horror Show at a publicly-owned venue. The show was in rehearsal when a cast member posted a video clip on his personal Facebook page. When the Mayor saw the clip, he canceled the already advertised production.

*The Administration of Catawba Valley Community College in North Carolina for banning a student from campus after he criticized via Facebook the school’s partnership with Higher One Financial Services and the aggressive marketing of a CVCC branded Debit Mastercard.

*Salem, Missouri Public Library’s Board of Trustees for using filtering software on library computers that classified many non-mainstream religious websites as “occult” or “criminal,” thereby blocking access to the sites.

*Lake of the Ozarks Camdenton R-III School District in Missouri for using filtering software on school computers that blocked access to many websites advocating equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people while comparable anti-gay websites were not blocked.

There were also two Virginia winners, including one that received a “Lifetime Achievement Muzzle”:

*The Norfolk, Virginia, Police Department for arresting and prosecuting a man for filming an on-duty police officer sitting in his car, claiming the man had to have the officer’s permission.

*The Virginia Department of Corrections for preventing an inmate from receiving a spoken word CD of works by Dylan Thomas because of a policy that permits only approved music and faith-based spoken word CDs. This is the third consecutive Muzzle for the VDOC, having previously been censured in 2010 for restricting access to religious spoken word CDs, and in 2011 for denying prisoners’ access to “The Jailhouse Lawyer’s Handbook,” a work detailing the legal rights of prisoners.

It was the Virginia Department of Corrections that received only the third lifetime Muzzle in the history of the awards. The others have been given to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in 1999, and the Federal Communications Commission, in 2008.

Suggested Links

Thomas Jefferson Center announces 2010 Muzzle Awards
Porn king Larry Flynt defends free speech in Charlottesville
Josh Wheeler discusses ‘Hustler v. Falwell’ as bulwark for free speech
Charlottesville lawyers compile rules against ‘politically correct’ Xmas
Highlighting free-speech worries, Virginia politicians disagree on SOPA

From the Archives: First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams talks about free speech in Charlottesville

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on March 22, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams talks about free speech in Charlottesville

Floyd Abrams, an attorney who has argued for freedom of speech and freedom of the press before the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as Citizens United and New York Times v. United States (the “Pentagon Papers”), came to Charlottesville on March 22 to speak at the Virginia Festival of the Book.

In a panel ostensibly about Abrams' recent book, Friend of the Court: On the Front Lines with the First Amendment, he was quizzed by Ronald L.K. Collins, author of Nuanced Absolutism: Floyd Abrams and the First Amendment, and audience members. Josh Wheeler, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, hosted the panel, which was held in the Charlottesville City Council chambers.

After he had autographed copies of his book for admiring readers, Abrams answered a few questions posed by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner.

ACLU evolution
One concern of his is the evolution of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) towards a position that often seems at odds with free speech rather than in favor of it.

The ACLU, he said “is becoming more of a liberal organization – more of a progressive organization – than a free-speech protective one.”

That is not to say, he explained, “that they would not protect, on the face of it, the right of some conservatives who were thrown in jail for speech; they would.”

In “hard areas” such as campaign finance law, however, he said that the ACLU is “too willing to give up speech for what they consider to be other social benefits. I think that they hurt themselves as an institution and limit themselves in terms of serving as a protector of the public when they do so.”

Minority protection
Related to that, Abrams indicated that he agrees with the premise of Jonathan Rauch's book, Kindly Inquisitors (which he said he has not read), that posits that members of minority groups are better off in a robust free-speech regime than in a regime that limits speech for the purpose of protecting those same groups.

Minority groups, Abrams said, or “people who are weaker than stronger are the people who generally benefit the most from living in a free society and a society in which speech is free.”

While that may not satisfy “people who say, 'but we have some people with more power than other people because of their money,'” he argued that “anytime we cut back significantly on speech, the people who tend to get hurt most, if not first, are people without rather than with power.”

Tillman Act
With regard to campaign finance law, Abrams offered some thoughts on the Tillman Act of 1907, one of the first such laws. The Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal campaigns, has been criticized by Justice Clarence Thomas, who told Stetson University law students in 2010 that Senator Benjamin Tillman “was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

Abrams said the Tillman Act had “conflicting” aims.

“One was to limit corporate power and corporate control,” but, he added, “the Tillman Act also had significant racist aspects to it,” although it was “basically a reform piece of legislation designed to crack down on corporations.”

Lane v. Franks
Finally, Abrams talked about a free-speech case he is following that he expects to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“There's one I'm watching very closely,” he said, and he has filed a brief in it, “which is a follow-up to the Garcetti case of a few years ago [Garcetti v. Cebalos, 2006], which basically said, if you work for the government, and you're doing something within the course of your governmental duties, they can fire you for any reason, including your speech.”

The current case, Lane v. Franks, he explained, involves a former government employee in Alabama, who observed a politically-connected person who was being paid for a government job that he did not actually do, and “who revealed the fact that the other person was essentially acting criminally. The other person was convicted, jailed, fined $160,000, and they fired the guy who turned him in.”

According to the First Amendment Coalition, which filed Abrams' brief in the case, Lane v. Franks “tests the limits of the categorical, on-off rule of constitutional interpretation that was applied in Garcetti. We think (hope) that the Court chose to review the Lane v. Franks case to reverse the appeals court and clarify the Garcetti decision in a way that permits First Amendment protection for true speech by government employees, at least in circumstances where the speech serves a public or governmental interest.”

The question raised by this case, Abrams noted in Charlottesville, is this: “Is that really consistent with the First Amendment? Is it really consistent to say that when you tell the truth in court, you can be fired for that? I don't think the Supreme Court is going to say that, but that's one case I'm watching.”

The complete audio recording of this interview with Floyd Abrams will soon be available as a podcast on Bearing Drift radio, "The Score."

SUGGESTED LINKS
 
Josh Wheeler discusses ‘Hustler v. Falwell’ as bulwark for free speech
Porn king Larry Flynt defends free speech in Charlottesville
Attacks on free speech provoke author Jonathan Rauch to defend 'liberal science'
Charlottesville Libertarians celebrate Bill of Rights Day at Free Speech Wall
Charlottesville lawyers compile rules against ‘politically correct’ Xmas

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/first-amendment-attorney-floyd-abrams-talks-about-free-speech-charlottesville