Not possible to separate Flynt from his pornography

TO THE EDITOR:

Tuesday was a weird day on The Daily Tar Heel opinion page for Larry Flynt news: a response from Anthony Maglione about the halt put to his question, a letter and a featured online reader comment claiming pornography should not be part of the discussion surrounding the free speech forum held last Thursday, even a DTH-approved “thumbs up” sign for Flynt at the bottom of the page (for what reason, aside from continued controversy, I can’t say).

But it’s the letter and comment I mentioned in the middle that I feel needs address. The letter from R. Blake Wentley states, “Pornography doesn’t enter into this discussion at all; we were there to hear what Mr. Flynt had to say about free speech, not to hear some random person tell us how ashamed we should be about caring what this man has to say about the First Amendment”.

I agree that people came to hear Flynt, not “some random person”, but that is specifically because his free speech lecture is a result of a well-known court case surrounding the issue, as it pertains to his use of pornographic content.

If we are talking about free speech and its implications, we need to know what that speech is and understand what work it does.

I do not believe it warranted, or even possible, to separate Flynt’s work with Hustler from our impressions of what he has to say to us about free speech. We would require a similar historical understanding for anyone else.



Jonathan Woollen
Junior
Communication Studies