Larry Flynt to visit UNC law school
Set to lead First Amendment talk
January 28, 2010
The most powerful man in porn is coming to the UNC campus.
Larry Flynt, pornography publisher and free speech activist, will visit UNC on Feb. 18 to deliver a speech at the School of Law’s symposium titled “Sexually Explicit Speech and the First Amendment.”
The free event — which could draw protests and opposition from women’s rights groups on campus — will be hosted in the Great Hall. Tickets will be available Monday.
Flynt, who was ranked by Britain’s Arena Magazine in 2003 as the top man in porn, is the head of Larry Flynt Publications, which produces several sexually explicit magazines, including Hustler Magazine and Barely Legal.
Flynt’s experience with First Amendment law includes the milestone U.S. Supreme Court case, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. In the case, Baptist minister Jerry Falwell sued Flynt for libel after Hustler printed a satirical advertisement with fake quotes attributed to Falwell about sexual relations with his mother.
The court ruled in Flynt’s favor, leading to more explicit parodies throughout the entertainment industry.
“If you go back and look at David Letterman and Saturday Night Live in the ’70s, those shows were extremely tame then compared to today,” Flynt said. “That would not have been possible had I not won that case.”
Flynt was paralyzed from the waist down following a 1978 assassination attempt and has since been known for his gold-plated wheelchair.
Flynt’s controversial profession might spark protestors, said Dan Kelly, editor of the First Amendment Law Review at UNC, which invited Flynt to speak on campus. Flynt will not be paid to speak, he said.
“While I think protests are entirely appropriate, I hope that we won’t have a repeat of the Tancredo incident from last year,” he said, referencing the uproar during a speech by former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., about illegal immigration.
Junior Leah Josephson, co-chairwoman of student government’s women’s affairs committee, said her committee will consider protesting the event.
“I think Hustler is a magazine that has been pushing the limit of the objectification of women for years, and it absolutely was the beginning of the hardcore porn market,” she said. “I don’t think that pornography is a free speech issue because I think it inspires rape culture.”
Flynt said he was not familiar with the protests sparked by Tancredo last year but wasn’t concerned.
Randy Young, spokesman for the Department of Public Safety, said UNC is preparing for Flynt’s arrival, but he would not provide specific information on the DPS plans.
Contact the University Editor at udesk@unc.edu.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
Breaking News
Be the first to know when breaking news occurs.
The Daily Tar Heel newsletter
Subscribe to our daily newsletter that includes the top stories of the day.
I, too, believe this is a
I, too, believe this is a free speech issue as well as a phenomenal learning opportunity for this community. Regardless of which side of the pornography debate you currently reside, I encourage everyone to educate themselves on BOTH sides. Attend the Larry Flynt lecture, but also attend the Robert Jensen screening and discussion of "The Price of Pleasure: Pornography, Sexuality, and Relationships" on Wed., Feb. 10 (http://womenscenter.unc.edu/womensweek/). At least this way, we can have a shared foundation of facts and knowledge upon which to base our opinions and discuss them in forums supported by this educational institution. If you're going to argue that we should exercise free speech, let both sides speak and THEN make up your mind.
And even there were such a
And even there were such a thing as "rape culture" to be inspired by pornography, that would make it even more of a free speech issue. There are limits to free speech - libel/slander, inciting a riot, communicating threats - but those limits are the result of much discussion and debate. I don't believe pornography encourages violence against women (it may inspire details of a specific act, but my guess is the perpetrator would have acted violently regardless); but there are people out there who are adamantly opposed to the existence of pornography. If you truly believe pornography directly causes violence the best way to get your point across and affect a change is to join the discussion civilly. Protesting an event such as this only makes the protesters look silly (at best) or crazy (at worst).
When I was a staff writer at
When I was a staff writer at the DTH, I would have felt the same emotions about allowing Larry Flynt to speak to the university community as do most of today's commentators.
Today, many years later, I'm the parent of two 13-year-olds who are asking questions and on the threshold of discovering all sorts of unsavory, to me, realities of life. And you know what? A blunt description/explanation of what they are about to encounter is what they need. I suggest that the same is what the university community needs.
Let Mr. Flynt come and speak. Some will agree. Most will disagree. All will be provoked. Is this not the purpose of a university? Should a learning environment reject that with which it doesn't agee in an effort to "protect" a certain agenda? Isn't it a stronger thing to make us listeners realize what we believe and contradict the speaker if that is called for?
The potentcy of free speech is that the beliefs of the people will prevail regardless of the so-called persuasiveness of the speaker. Trust in your university community. Welcome Mr. Flynt. And be reassured that the views he will express won't change the thinking of your peers and colleagues. But he does have the right to speak.
This is not free speech! It
This is not free speech! It is a sad day at Carolina; when we put pornography before we do children. A parent cannot sit beside their child every time they are on the internet. The Hustler degrades women, period. Does this have any thing to do with free speech? In my opinion, this presentation demeans so many things that we strive to overcome here at UNC.
If your concern is what your
If your concern is what your minor children see while they're using the Internet, don't have Internet in your home or don't allow your children access to it. Problem solved. If you don't agree with what is being taught in schools, homeschool your children. If you don't like open dialog on many issues at a specific venue, don't support that venue.
If, on the other hand, your position is "the rest of the world should be forced to obey the rules of my house because I'm too lazy or selfish to enforce them myself," I'm afraid you have no ground to stand on. You can't ask society to do your parenting for you.
The pain children cause on their parents doesn't end after the birthing process or even after nursing. It is felt every time parents have to pack away a beautiful, antique coffee table because its edges are too sharp. It is felt whenever parents have to take personal days for tending a child's illness instead of being able to use them for a vacation. It is felt every time a baby cries during the night, a child has a nightmare, or two books on children's health disagree. It is felt when parents can't get a babysitter and thus cannot attend a party or play a video game or go for a hike or have an uninterrupted evening of romance. All of these pains and many others are part and parcel with the decision to become a parent.
You [hopefully] wouldn't expect society to unleash an army of nannies to remove every single annoyance or pain point you have when raising your child. You don't expect free baby sitters or demand that all furniture that has pointy edges be promptly destroyed and banned from manufacture.
So why do you expect society to give up a normal, regular means of expressing themselves simply because actually taking steps to keep your children from seeing something you don't want would inconvenience you? Raise your children yourself; don't ask me to do it for you, and don't you dare try to raise me.
We're pulling the "Won't
We're pulling the "Won't somebody -please- think of the children?" card? That's interesting, considering this is a lecture geared at (what I presume are) intelligent, free-thinking adults, and not for kids who need something to do while waiting for their sippy cups after their nap.
(Also? I die a little inside every time that someone advocates a speaker shouldn't be allowed at UNC, and cites the First Amendment as part of their argument.)
It's getting pretty predictable here at UNC:
1) Speaker is announced.
2) Someone doesn't like the speaker and throws a hissy fit, saying it's inconsistent with the ideals of UNC, ignoring the fact that we're a University, and exchange of ideas goes along with the bag. Some ideas are just SO bad that we shouldn't consider giving them the light of day.
3) Cadres on both sides argue the merits of free speech vs. OMG my delicate sensibilities will be hurt.
4) I grow progressively more jaded; my posts eventually crossing the line from passionate to personal.
Obviously, based on the historical context, Sexually Explicit Speech -can- be considered a First Amendment Issue per court rulings. Agree? Disagree? Go to the talk and learn more about the issue, to become a better advocate, dissident, or indifferent.
Silencing an opinion you disagree with doesn't make it go away, and it doesn't make it wrong.
Leah Josephson espouses a
Leah Josephson espouses a tired argument that is loaded with uncritical thought, personal bias, and a heinous presumption of moral authority.
First, what the heck is "rape culture"? Where is this cabal of mild-mannered husbands who watch XTube and then promptly rape their wives? There is no reason to think they exist. As another commenter pointed out in contrast to this idea, there exists correlative (not causative) evidence showing, in fact, that increases in pornography happen at the same time as violent sexual crimes decrease. This suggests a link between the two that runs counter to that predicted by Ms. Josephson's hypothesis.
But even if we just chalk Ms. Josephson's usage of the word "rape" as being a horrifically poor choice of words, we still need to examine her basic "objectification of women" idea. In discussing it with a friend, he pointed out that humans "objectify EVERYTHING." "American Idol objectifies people who can sing (okay, I'm stretching). Sports objectify people with physical prowess. The point of these things is to stimulate us by showing us perfection in one aspect of the human experience. That's why we read fiction, too. It's not an objectification. It's an exploration and intentionally fake presentation for enjoyment or for fulfillment."
Furthermore, if porn is bad because it "objectifies women", does that make gay porn good because it doesn't? Or perhaps it is morally necessary because it counters the centuries of female repression by "objectifying" men? I watch a fairly large amount of porn, and none of it has ever featured a woman (unless I accidentally clicked the wrong link). Am I, then, what, supporting the objectification of Italian models, Brazilian surfers, and American lumberjacks? Is that bad or good? If bad, why? Because I am paying more attention to their bodies than their minds? I do the opposite when I interview job applicants. Am I objectifying intelligent people then?
Next, what in the world does Ms. Josephson think free speech is? If freedom of speech referred to the freedom to say only nice things that everyone agrees with, it wouldn't need to be protected in the Constitution. Whether or not you agree with a paradigm or opinion someone expresses has nothing to do with whether or not they are protected in their expression. Whether I am proposing that women are actually cabbages or that America should embrace communism or that homeopathy heals or that Jesus is the son of a god, I am free to speak, and am protected in my speech. That's the POINT.
It is my wish that people who hold an opinion on the ickiness of a topic would stop trying to legitimize their arguments by making undemonstrated claims about causal links relating the topic to the suffering of others. Rape is real and is a terrible, terrible crime. If one is serious about preventing rape, it seems to me that one should actually learn what causes it in reality, instead of saying that anything one doesn't like leads to it. Ms. Josephson belittles rape victims by trying to claim their suffering as support for her agenda. Her exploitation of others' suffering is disgusting, wrong, and cynical.
“I don’t think that
“I don’t think that pornography is a free speech issue because I think it inspires rape culture.”
....says someone who would probably like to ignore the correlation between the availability of internet pornography and a steady decline in incidences of sexual violence.
"rape culture," particularly in this context, is a fictitious concept used by feminists to emotionalize arguments that they can't support with facts.