February 23, 1977

'Hustler' Trash Not Free Speech

A shocking memory of a tour I once made through an insane asylum is that of man who had the disgusting habit of making a bowel movement on the floor and then dipping his finger into it to smear "God Is Love" on the walls.

I experience the same feeling of revulsion when I read or hear editorial criticism of the jury conviction of Larry Flynt, publisher of the pornographic magazine "Hustler", for violation of Ohio's obscenity law.

Flynt was allowed a jail house press conference so he could weep into television cameras about his martyrdom to "free speech."  Many newspapers and television commentators have taken up the cry that the U.S. Constitution is destroyed if Flynt's conviction is not promptly overturned.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

The Constitution is brief on the matter: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press."

On the whole, the paucity of specific language is the secret of success of our paramount document of government.  The necessity of interpretation has made it possible to fit our laws to changing conditions.

However, we have to deal constantly with the mischief of a literal construction of the Constitution at the one extreme, and with willful interpretations at the other.

Nowhere is this more forcefully demonstrated than in the matter of free speech.  On the one hand we- have the pornographers and anarchists who peddle their foul wares under the umbrella of free speech.  In opposition we have the alarmists who would repeal the first article of the Bill of Rights to suppress all evils of democracy.

As usual, the extreme view is distorted.  There is an adequate body of jurisprudence in existence to make speech both free and responsible.

Our Founding Fathers expected that individual states would spell out our rights to a greater degree in their own constitutions and laws, and this has been the case.

The Ohio constitution is typical of those for all other states and has this to say about free speech:

"Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of the right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, or of the press."

It will be noted that Ohio, and the other states without exception, has coupled RESPONSIBILITY to the RIGHT.

Both federal and state courts have said repeatedly that the First Amendment "cannot have, and obviously was not intended to give, immunity for every possible use of language."  In its most recent decision on obscenity the U.S. Supreme Court denounced utterances that "tend to corrupt public morals."

A 12-person jury in Cincinnati had no difficulty deciding that the 11 issues of Hustler it examined were obscene and corrupting.

It is certain that the case will be appealed ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Many millions of slimy dollars hinge on the outcome.

The press - understandably concerned about the guarantee of free speech - has reacted in knee-jerk fashion to the Hustler decision.  The first step of any tyrannical suppression is well justified.

Yet, it is interesting that the several criticisms of the Hustler decision which I have noted were all prefaced with a recognition that the magazine is obscene.

The commentators have no difficulty in deciding the magazine is devoted to pandering and clearly violates state law.  This being so, the publication has no defense.

If Hustler is not obscene, then nothing is.  If society has the right to set standards and compel adherence, then there is no place for Hustler and similarly corrupting magazines.

The press had better back off from its illogical stand.  If it is unable to see and practice responsibility, an outraged society may go too far in the direction of censorship in order to correct obvious abuse.

Newspapers and television stations, as a fact, have no difficulty is perceiving Hustler as obscene, and neither did a jury of typical citizens.  The press and other defenders of free speech have got to have faith that the citizenry as a whole can make the same discerning observation.

Society and its authorities have no difficulty in deciding that a man who writes beautiful sentiments on walls in an offensive manner is a nut who should be locked up.  A man who publishes trash in an offensive manner deserves the same treatment.

In extending the right of free speech to corrupting and trivial matters, we may destroy that right ultimately for political expression.  There is a vital difference which we must discover and maintain at all costs.

Author: Lindsey Williams