Written as a Speech in April 2002
Hustler Magazine vs Jerry Falwell Powerpoint
The Constitution of the United States was ratified September 17, 1787. Four years later ten amendments were appended to it, known collectively as the Bill of Rights. The very first of those amendments reads,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
While this may seem to be a clear statement that the government of the United States is not allowed to interfere with its citizens’ religious practices or their self-expression, few assertions in American politics have raised as many questions for debate over the past 200 years as this single sentence, and few debates have been as charged with passion as those that sought to define its scope and meaning. Does my freedom to move my fist stop before, after, or exactly when it meets your nose? Does speech include radio and television broadcasts that could create a panic, or reveal a national secret? How about a song that tells its listeners to get a gun and kill, kill, kill? How about the printed word? How about pictures? Let’s not even start on the internet! These questions have continuously been asked throughout the history of the US. And the debate between the right one has to put forward an idea, verses the degree to which the law must protect the emotional well being of others has been raging from day one of the first amendment.
A vital, modern example of the debate between people who advocate freedom of conscience and those who believe in freedom within the limits of moral legislation resulted in the 1988 Supreme Court case of Hustler Magazine, Inc vs Jerry Falwell. In the one corner was: Larry Flynt, the founder, CEO and editor in Chief of Hustler Magazine was and still is a multimillionaire porn king and a coinsurer of poor taste, and in the other corner: leader of the Moral Majority, and at that time the second most-admired man in America after President Ronald Reagan, according to a Good Housekeeping poll – Jerry Falwell.
It all started in 1987 when Larry Flynt approved a piece for the inside front cover of Hustler Magazine. The piece was a parody of a well known Campari advertising series where celebrities would talk about their “first time”. The ads contained a sexual innuendo, leading up to the fact that they were actually talking about their first time drinking Campari. The Hustler version depicted Jerry Falwell actually talking about his first sexual encounter, which Hustler claimed was in an out house with his mother.
Falwell sued Hustler for liable and causing emotional distress, but while on the stand testifying in a Virginia court room, Falwell admitted to the fact that no one could have taken the parody seriously. Because of this admission, the jury decided that the liable suit had to be dropped, but the conservative Virginian court convicted Flynt of causing emotional distress, and fined him $150 000. Flynt actually counter sued Falwell for copy right infringement because his Church had copied the parody and sent it to fund raisers to gain support for his campaign. But the main issue was that Flynt appealed the ruling and lost again in the Federal Appeals court. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the contention that the “actual malice” standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, must be met before respondent can recover for emotional distress. But after petitioning, the case was eventually accepted but the Supreme Court in 1987.
In the short run the Supreme Court decision was perhaps of minor importance to both Falwell and Flynt. Both men are as wealthy as crooks, and the award in question amounted to only $200,000. Both men are far too popular with their own constituencies for their reputations to be seriously damaged by the opinions of enemies such as each other. And neither man is a stranger to the courtroom. Flynt in particular has been such an zealous defender of First Amendment rights that he was actually in a psychiatric prison at the time of the first case for throwing oranges at a judge while wearing a diaper fashioned from an American flag.
But in the long run the final decision in Falwell v. Flynt was of tremendous importance – not only because it let the scurrilous, pugnacious Flynt publish a nasty satire of the strait-laced, white middle-class American daddy Falwell, but chiefly because these two mean-spirited men perfectly represent the extreme positions in American society regarding some of this nation’s most fundamental freedoms. Furthermore, when the Supreme Court made its decision in favor of Flynt’s right to publish his satire over Falwell’s right not to be lampooned, it did so unanimously; and the opinion exonerating Flynt was written by the court’s least likely personality, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Prior to Falwell v. Flynt Rehnquist had voted against the press every time he had heard such a case before the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, in finding for Flynt he wrote, “At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern…. The freedom to speak one’s mind,’” he continued, quoting from another Supreme Court decision called Bose v. Consumers Union, “is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.’”
What this means is that anyone can say anything they want to about a public figure, as long as it is their opinion, and not stated as fact. That once you enter the public arena, you give up your right to claim for emotionally distressing statements made about you. Does that sound harsh or unfair? Well, imagine a world were Jay Leno gets sued ever night, where South Park, the Daily Show or any other satirical media can not afford to be produced because liable suits would run rampant. But most importantly, be aware that even though you may not like Larry Flynt, or what he does, he proved that if the law will protect the rights of the self proclaimed “King of Bad Taste”, “Mr. Scum-bucket” and the “Worlds Greatest Pig”, then it will protect your rights as well.
Written in March of 2002
In my paper, I would like to examine two sides of smoking in the realm of nutrition and drugs. For one, why is smoking so addictive and secondly, how does nicotine effect your body’s internal functioning, in regards to the enzymes, vitamins and hormones that are affected by all the smoke that you take in.
To start with, why does the RDA recommend that smokers get more Vitamin C and E than the rest of us? Well yes, because they help lower levels of free radicals. Free radicals are partials that have been oxidized, which means that they have lost a electron. When you breathe these free radicals in, they steal electrons from enzymes and cells, oxidizing them, which stop them from doing their job effectually. D-alpha tocopherol, or vitamin E, is a fat soluble vitamin found in nuts, seeds, vegetable and fish oils, whole grains, cereals, and apricots and ascorbic acid, commonly known as vitamin C, is a water soluble vitamin present in citrus fruits and juices, green peppers, cabbage, spinach, broccoli, kiwi, and strawberries. These vitamins are antioxidants. They help to protect the body against the damaging effects of free radicals by binding onto them, by essentially giving up a hydrogen atom. In the process, the vitamin C is used up. Cigarette smoke, which contains a lot of free radicals, places heavy demands on the body’s antioxidant defense system, including its vitamin C supply. The turnover of vitamin C is much greater in smokers than in nonsmokers so because of this increased demand, smokers need a higher intake of vitamin C than nonsmokers, in order to maintain normal blood levels of this vitamin. (more…)
Written as a Speech around March 2002
Introduction
Everyone in this room could come down to Ybor with me tonight, and for a little bit more than the cost a movie ticket, experience a drug that would allow us to feel free and euphoric while still giving us the energy to dance until the early hours of the morning. Well… except for those of you who are possibly on an anti-depressant, have epilepsy or simply took a few Tylenol before hitting the clubs – for you it would probably kill. The drug I am talking about is ecstasy. With almost 7% of all 12th Graders having used it before, ecstasy is one of the “new” designer drugs that have actually been out since the 70’s but have recently become fashionable, especially throughout the club scene. Of all available narcotics, I have the biggest problem with ecstasy because although the prevailing attitude towards it is that of a “safe” drug, it is in actuality one of the most dangerous. Today I will explain how the drug works, as well as why it is so dangerous and finally what is being done to keep curb the dangers associated with ecstasy. Rudyard Kipling once said that “words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind” So it is very important that my words here today will allow you to make informed decisions and perhaps even help others. (more…)
Written for a speech around February 2002
In March of 1998, First National Bank, my bank in South Africa, received a phone call. It was to their IT department. The phone call went something like this: “First National Bank IT, how may I help you?” “Hi there, may I please speak to your Head of Department?” “Sure, hang on a second.” “Bob speaking how I may help you.” Hi Bob, this is Michael. I would like a job.” “I am sorry Sir, but this is IT, you need to speak to human resources.” “No Bob I need to speak to you.” “Sir, we are the IT department, only Human Resources can hire people.” “Well Bob, I have just hacked your system.” Pause. “Michael is it? I am afraid that is impossible, we have the some of the most secure servers in the world.” “Bob… check your email, I’ll call back in five minutes.” So five minutes after Bob found the entire list of usernames, passwords, credit card numbers and pin codes of First National Banks customers in his email box, my friend Michael, or Wiz as he prefers to be called, became the new head of security at First National Bank. He is 25 and drives a nice new Jaguar. (more…)
Written around December 2001
Introduction
The Vietnam War is the longest military conflict that the United States has participated in. It cost the US $150 billion and 58,000 American lives and estimates on North Vietnamese losses range up to a million[1]. The Republic of Vietnam lies entirely within the Tropics. Saigon is halfway around the world from Washington, D.C. and there is a 12-hour difference in time between the two cities. The nearest off-shore U.S. hospital is almost 1,000 miles away at Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines, The nearest logistical support base is about 1,800 miles away in Okinawa. The nearest complete hospital center is in Japan, some 2,700 miles distant. Patients being evacuated to the United States must travel, some 7,800 miles to reach Travis Air Force Base in California, or almost 9,000 miles to reach Andrews Air Force Base, near Washington, D.C[2]. When considering the nature of the Vietnam War, it is surprising that there were not many more fatalities on the American side. With staggering casualty rates, but high survival rates, one can begin to understand the success of the medical operations in during the war. During the 18 years of conflict the medical units of the army, navy and air force continued to provide exceptional care under extremely difficult circumstances. (more…)
Written around March 2001
Edgar Alan Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado” is a confession by a man called Montresor to a murder that he committed fifty years previously, in an un-named European city. In the confession, Montresor explains how he killed his “friend” (192), Fortunato, over a “thousand injuries” (191) and a final unspecified insult.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines dramatic irony as ”the effect achieved by leading an audience to understand an incongruity between a situation and the accompanying speeches, while the characters in the play remain unaware of the incongruity.” Poe employs this kind of irony to emphasize his character’s carefully thought-out plan to maximize the pain of his friend’s demise. He uses ironic layers of perception to lead the reader though Fortunato’s final realization of how a double layer of possible interpretation of meaning underlies the events that take place over the period leading up to his death. (more…)
Written around March 2001
Existentialism is “a philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one’s acts.” It was a philosophy that was followed by great writers like Ezra Pound, Gertrude Stein and T.S Eliot, and which is seen extensively in the work of Ernest Hemingway. Hemingway’s beliefs concerning existentialism are the driving force behind his short story, ”A Clean Well Lighted Place”. The story centers on issues such as depression, loneliness, aging and despair, but all are set around the theme of existentialism. (more…)
Terribly written in February of 2001
Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s short story, “The Yellow Wall-Paper”, portrays the life of a young woman who is suffering from a “temporary nervous depression” (Gilman 153) with “a slight hysterical tendency” (Gilman 153). Trapped in a “colonial mansion” (Gilman 152) by her physician husband, who believes that the house will be therapeutic, her mental state begins to deteriorate to the point of hallucinations and chronic paranoid delusions. Her grip on reality seems to be made worse though the story by her husband and his parental-like treatment of her. If we use modern psychological diagnostic techniques to asses the young lady’s situation, we can get a much better idea of what is ailing her than a “temporary nervous depression”. Appling these techniques gives a picture of someone suffering from a personality disorder, “a continuing pattern of perceiving and relating to the world that is maladaptive across a variety of contexts and results in a notable impairment or distress” (Kendall and Hammen 407). (more…)
Next Page »
