Alan Isaacman

Larry, thousands of people petition the Supreme Court, OK? Thousands.

Our case is better than most, you're missing my point, and that is they will never pick you. Because you're a nightmare. They're afraid if they let you in there, you're gonna wear a diaper, or throw oranges at the justices, and they should be, Larry, because in all the times you've gone to the court asking for help, you've never once demonstrated any respect for its institutions and procedures.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard a lot today, and I'm not gonna go back over it, but you have to go into that room and make some decisions. But before you do, there's something you need to know. I am not trying to suggest that you should like what Larry Flynt does. I don't like what Larry Flynt does, but what I do like is the fact that I live in a country where you and I can make that decision for ourselves. I like the fact that I live in a country where I can pick up Hustler magazine and read it, or throw it in the garbage can if that's where I think it belongs.

At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas, freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of an individual liberty but is essential to the quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole, in the world of debate about public affairs many things done with motives that are less than admirable are none of the less protected by the first amendment.

Look, it's not just them, Larry, okay? It's me! It's me! I am not taking you! Lawyers dream about a case like this in front of the Supreme Court, they dream of it. And they would probably hear us, if you want the truth. But I am not going with you! I have been giving you my best since back when people were laughing at you. And every time I come in there now, you fuck me with this bullshit circus act! I won't do it again. I can't. I'm not gonna do it in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. Your sentimental speeches and your cornball patriotism, they don't work on me anymore, Larry, because I don't believe you. I don't believe you.

Mr. Chief Justice and, may it please the court one of the cherished ideas, that we hold in this country is that there should be uninhibited public debate and freedom of speech. Now, 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 his views.

Okay. Also, and more importantly, it was a satire of a public figure, of Jerry Falwell. Who in this case, was really a prime candidate for such a satire, because he's such an unlikely person to appear in a liquor ad. This is a person we are used to seeing at the pulpit, Bible in hand, preaching with a famously beatific smile on his face

Yes. Yes, Your Honor, there is a public interest in making Jerry 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 BS. And, Hustler magazine has every right to express this view! They have the right to say that somebody who has campaigned, actively against their 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 BS. 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 then 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.

It's interesting you mentioned George Washington Justice Scalia 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

No, Justice Scalia, I would say there is no line between two, because really what you're talking about is a matter of taste, and not law. As you yourself said, I believe in Pope vs. 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 that there is no libelous speech, that nobody could reasonably believe that Hustler was actually suggesting that Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother.

Hustler puts him and his mother together as an example of literary travesty, if you will.

Well, it serves the same public purpose as having Gary Trudeau say that Reagan has no brain, or that George Bush is a wimp. It let's us look at public figures a little bit differently. We have a long tradition in this country of satiric commentary. Now, if Jerry Falwell can sue, when there has been no libelous speech, purely on the grounds of emotional distress, then so can other public figures. And, imagine if you will, suits against people like Gary Trudeau, and Johnny Carson for what says on The Tonight Show tonight. Obviously, when people criticize public figure, they're going to experience emotional distress, we all know that. It's the easiest thing in the world to claim, and it's impossible to refute, and 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.

I have giving you my best since back when people were laughing at you, and every time we come in there now, you fuck me with this bullshit circus act.

I can exercise my right and not buy Hustler Magazine I like that I have that right I care about it and you should care about it too because we live in a free country we say that a lot but sometimes I think we forget what that really means so listen to it again " we live in a free country" and that is a powerful idea that is a magnificent way to live but there is a price for that freedom which is sometimes we have to tolerate things we don't necessarily like, so go back into that room where you are free to think whatever you want to think about Larry Flynt and Hustler Magazine but then ask yourselves if you want to make that decision for the rest of us because the freedom that everyone in this room enjoys is in a very real way in your hands and if we start throwing up walls against where some of us think is obscene we may very well wake up one morning and realize that walls have been thrown up in all kinds of places we never expected and we can't see anything or do anything and that's not freedom, that is not freedom so be careful, thank you.

Twenty seven, Harvard law school, three years in the public defender's office obviously you can get whoever you want to represent you in this case let me say this: your pretty far out there even for the guys that do a lot of this stuff. I am interested in your case, the problem you've got is definitely what I know best and I am good at what I do.

No, I don't specialize in porn, I'll be perfectly honest I don't particularly like what you do, I specialize in civil liberties.

This case is bigger than just you and your magazine in your case what's a little more troubling is this "organized crime" charge

I've got to ask you this one time: do you have any connection to organized crime?

Then this is a completely bullshit charge but we have to take this seriously because you can conceivably looking at seven to twenty five years in prison.

Can we discuss the fate of Cousin Bobby later? I think we should take this very seriously