Protecting free speech not always easy
Je suis Larry Flynt.
The cartoonists and satirists at France’s Charlie Hebdo magazine who were murdered Jan. 7 by Muslim extremists for their “blasphemous” depictions of Mohammad operated on a higher plane than Flynt, the notorious publisher of Hustler magazine. But Flynt also ranks as an irrepressible provocateur who was constantly harassed by prosecutors and puritans, and who actually took a bullet for his audaciousness.
Hustler, which debuted in 1974, was the most sexually explicit of mainstream magazines on the market at the time. Because of that, Flynt was prosecuted repeatedly on obscenity charges, most of which he managed to beat one way or another.
In 1988, Flynt was a defendant in a case that ended up before the Supreme Court. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell involved a case in which Flynt had been sued by the Rev. Jerry Fallwell over an ad parody in the magazine suggesting that Falwell’s first sexual encounter had been with his mother in an outhouse.
Falwell claimed that he had suffered emotional distress because of the satire. But the court ruled that Falwell, as a public figure, couldn’t recover damages for “intentional infliction of emotional distress” based on parodies. The case is regarded as an important clarification of the legal limits on the right of public figures to sue for slander.
In 1978, during a legal battle over obscenity charges in Gwinnett County, Ga., Flynt and his lawyer were shot by a sniper in an ambush near the county courthouse. The wound left Flynt partially paralyzed and in need of a wheelchair from then on.
A white supremecist, already in jail on multiple murder charges, confessed to the shooting years later. He said he had been outraged by an interracial photo spread in Hustler.
Flynt basically is a smut peddler and, fittingly, a hustler. But in the process of challenging social conventions and the limits of the law, he also managed to become something of a champion of free speech.
Flynt’s saga seems relevant in light of the uplifting show of global solidarity with the French people after the Charlie Hebdo murders. The attack spawned what is believed to be the largest rally in French history, attended not only by ordinary citizens but also leaders from around the world (although sadly, no high-ranking officials from the U.S.).
It was an impressive show of support for pluralistic Western values, free speech in particular. And it was an in-your-face rebuke to the radical Islamists who threaten death to those who mock their prophet.
The massive rally might give the impression that the defense of free speech is easy. But it is instructive that most of the media outlets reporting the demonstration elected not to offer examples of the controversial cartoons that had appeared in Charlie Hebdo because viewers might find them offensive.
This should remind us that the real defense of free speech occurs primarily on the fringes of acceptability, well past the bastions of good taste. Flynt and Charlie Hebdo didn’t offend accidentally, they went out of their way to do so.
And fully embracing their right and the right of others to be objectionable can be uncomfortable at times. For example, even the most devoted defenders of the First Amendment have found it hard to justify allowing members of the hate-mongering Westboro Baptist Church to hold their anti-gay demonstrations at military funerals.
But their right to do so also was upheld by the Supreme Court. It’s free speech.
Most of us try to balance a basic belief in the right of free speech with a concern for civility and decorum. We want to show respect for other people’s beliefs and customs.
But we have to save a place at the table for those who ignore those niceties, who barrel their way through civility all the way to deliberate offensiveness. Why? Because they puncture the pomposity, the ignorance, the self-importance and the narrow-mindedness of the zealots and fanatics who think their way is the only way.
They are useful allies in battling religious extremism, and the world lost brave souls in the massacre at Charlie Hebdo. We can only hope the free world that rallied to their cause will remain resolute in the difficult battle to preserve the right of free speech, even when it offends us.
This story was originally published January 15, 2015 at 12:00 AM with the headline "Protecting free speech not always easy."