Jerry Falwell v. Larry Flynt: The First Amendment on Trial

by Rodney A. Smolla

In February 1988, the Supreme Court handed down its decision on one of the most explosive challenges to the First Amendment in legal history. The case began in 1983, when Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine published a parody that portrayed the Reverend Jerry Falwell--leader of the powerful Moral Majority--as a drunk who engaged in sexual relations with his mother. A shocked Falwell sued Flynt for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After a wild trial in federal district court, a jury awarded Falwell substantial damages. A federal appeals court upheld the verdict, but then the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Flynt, a sweeping reaffirmation of the freedom of speech. This book is a highly entertaining and intellectually provocative account of this crucial legal battle. The author uses the trial as the centerpiece of a broad exploration of the First Amendment and its implications. In addition, he places the conflict in the larger context of modern televangelism and the pornography business--both lucrative enterprises with powerful media influence.

Genres: Nonfiction, Law, Politics, History

352 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 1988

Reviews

[Eric_W · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 1983 Hustler magazine printed a parody of a Campari advertisement. The real ad was based on the slogan, "You'll never forget your first time." Flynt's parody showed Jerry Falwell in a reflective pose being interviewed about his first time and included such lines as, "I never really expected to make it with Mom, but then after she showed all the other guys in town such a good time. . . ." The pseudo-interview continued in similar bad taste. Falwell, understandably, and having no sense of humor, was incensed when one of his staff showed him the Hustler advertisement (it's unclear if this was regular reading material for the staff or not.)In any case, Falwell decided to sue (and not coincidentally use the incident as the foundation for a major fund-raising campaign.) Flynt, one of America's more repugnant byproducts, rested his case basically on the premise, "Can't you take a joke, Jerry?"

Smolla, a professor of Constitutional Law at the College of William and Mary, has written a fascinating account of the case, which raised all sorts of fundamental freedom of speech and freedom of religion issues. The book is delightfully entertaining, while presenting a clear and concise accounting of the case and some background on the evangelical movement with biographical sketches of the main players.

The Supreme Court decided, in a unanimous decision that Flynt, had every right to make a fool out of Jerry Falwell (and himself.)

The best comment I read about the case came from a book by Lewis Grizzard Don't Bend Over in the Garden, Granny, You Know Them Taters Got Eyes. It's too good not to quote:

"Who do yo pull for in something like that. It's like picking a favorite between cancer or heart attack, fat or ugly, Iraq or Iran.
It took me about three seconds to decide who I was for: Flynt.
Her's why: Give the book burners one little victory like Falwell over Flynt and those people can get red-eyed with determination to see everything but the Bible, Reader's Digest and Guns and Ammo flushed down the toilet. You've seen people like that. They have beady little eyes, the men wear Bermuda shorts and eat a lot of prunes and the women have mustaches and dowager's humps. They tend to speak partially through their noses.
They not only want to censor books and magazines, they would do away with anything that is fun, such as doing it with the lights on and drinking in the daytime.
These people have no sense of humor, keep plastic over their living room furniture, like Bob Barker, send money to television evangelists, buy velvet paintings of Jesus and/or bullfighters from people selling along the edge of the road, don;t like dogs, are pale, are still wearing polyester and haven't had a decent bowel movement in twenty years.
S.J. Perelman referred to such individuals as 'damp people.' I could add to that by saying they are the mushrooms of the human race.
Let them have a say in what we can read or watch or do and pretty soon, the rest of us will be just as bored as they are."

[Nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book in college while studying journalism. I read it for fun, though, and it paid off. Many people may remember the film The People vs. Larry Flynt. This is the real story, as told by the lawyer who defended Penthouse publisher Larry Flynt when Reverend Jerry Falwell sued him. It captures perfectly the frustrations of trying to defend a man like Flynt. In the end the fight is really about the first amendment. The actual suit started over Flynt's publication of a cartoon depicting Jerry Falwell having drunken sex with his own mother. The courtroom scenes are hilarious and disturbing, with Flynt clearly out of his mind and Falwell being as sanctimonious as ever. One of the joys of this book is that you never truly know who to root for, so you root for the ideal of free speech. Rarely in American court history have two more miserable sonsofabitches been up against each other. It's a fantastic story.

NC

[Mat Brewster · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'd seen the movie version in college and have ever since been fascinated by the case. Smolla does a better job portraying both of the people behind the case while neither glamorizing or sneering at them. The first 2/3rds of the book are tightly written and totally understandable to the lay person. Just before the trial goes to the Supreme Court he gets bogged down a bit in laying out multiple free speech cases that have bone before the Court before and I found myself skipping paragraphs and pages at a time. But once it gets to the Court he once again returns to his more casual style and it is immensely readable and enjoyable.

[MAIDENFED · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 stars if only for the direct quotes from the case