Don’t Go Away Mad (Just Go Away) ... or, Larry Flynt bids a final farewell to the Falwells.

"The Hustler publisher, who won a landmark First Amendment legal battle against Jerry Falwell Sr., writes about Jerry Falwell Jr.’s fall from grace—and the Trump of it all."

In civics class my senior year of high school, we were divided into groups and chose topics for the big class project. Seeing as Theatair-X (in its original drive-in format) was in the news at the time, and a local group had been formed to combat obscenity (one of many before and since), we chose smut as our focus.

Well, someone had to do it. 

A woman representing the Citizens for Decency committed to addressing the class, and then one of my stablemates reached Theatair-X by phone. A fellow calling himself the manager (Tim?) said sure, he'd come and speak, too. Alas, Tim was a no-show, and later that summer he was gunned down in a drive-by shooting as he was mowing his lawn.

Seriously.

In the meantime, someone acquired source materials for our research; it was the dawning age of the VCR, but they as yet they were very expensive, and we opted for the print medium: Hustler, Penthouse, et al. Why not Playboy, I asked? "Too many words for the money," came the reply.

Now, to the real point.

In this 1978 edition of Hustler, Larry Flynt had a photo spread to the effect of "War: the Ultimate Obscenity." There were truly gruesome, horrific photos of battlefield mutilation, such that I can still "see" one of them today, 42 years later.

However, I can't recall a single one of the nude shots.

This isn't to issue a blanket defense of obscenity, or to express a preference for pornography ... whatever THOSE words actually mean in the context of freedom of speech and expression, which of course are the components of the real discussion.

I understand it's complicated, and as with racism, sexism is destructive.

At the same time, Flynt was absolutely right. War strikes me as the ultimate obscenity, and this includes violence of all sorts, war or non-war, directed against human beings.

All too often those hypocritical pastors in the mold of Falwell Pere have blessed the destruction, and it strikes me as poetic that Flynt has issued his final farewell.

Larry Flynt: My Final Farewell to the Falwells, by Larry Flynt (The Daily Beast)

When I heard that Jerry Falwell Jr. had resigned the presidency of Liberty University in disgrace, it struck me as the belated ending to a long personal saga with the Falwell clan—and an essential footnote to the role of religion and free speech in America. For those unfamiliar with ancient history, it began in the 1970s, soon after I started publishing Hustler.

Jerry Falwell Sr., then head of the Moral Majority Christian interest group, sued me for libel and the “intentional infliction of emotional distress” over a Hustler parody of a Campari ad that used the liqueur’s slogan: “You’ll never forget your first time.” The parody featured an interview with Falwell waxing nostalgic about his “first time”—with his mother in a Virginia outhouse.

The legal battle lasted five years, from 1983 to 1988, including three decisions against me in federal courts. There was an important principle at stake: the right of artists, writers, and publishers to satirize public figures. Finally, I was vindicated by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision written by conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist. This case is often cited as a landmark ruling for the preservation of our First Amendment rights to free speech.

Ironically, Falwell Sr. and I actually became friends later. We enjoyed many cordial visits, participated in debates across the country, and even exchanged Christmas cards. I have to concede that his friendship with me proves that, for the most part, he was practicing an essential tenet of his faith, forgiveness, and was a sincere Christian.

Which is more than can be said for many of his fellow televangelists—the sorry parade of charlatans like Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Paula White, and all the other prime-time Elmer Gantrys—including the son, Jerry Falwell Jr. They’re obsessed above all with sexual behavior, ignoring and subverting the core message of Christianity—humility and compassion for the downtrodden—while embracing “prosperity gospel,” which is to say the gospel of greed above all other values.

They support Republican politicians eager to gut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare and other programs designed to do what Jesus Christ strived for: the reduction of human suffering in this vale of tears. They live in multimillion-dollar mansions and fly around in private jets, while fleecing their flock for “prayer donations” guaranteed to cure incurable diseases and afflictions. They forget that Jesus Christ only lost his temper and acted violently once: when driving the money-lenders from the temple. But they are not troubled in the least by the banksters on Wall Street, who hoovered up millions from middle-class Americans, granting the 1 percent a get-out-of-jail-free card to do it all over again. Instead, these evangelists reserve the whip for gays, women who want to control their own bodies, pot smokers, and other “heretics” who are only trying to lead fulfilling lives. They actually work to increase the sum of human suffering. They are peddlers of religious snake oil ...

As an addendum (2013):

Al Goldstein and New Albany DVD (Cleopatra's) both are dead. Somewhere, a dog barks.

Chaska MN has settled Noah McCourt's lawsuit for blocking access to its social media accounts.

From January 6, 2019:

Damn straight I'm paying close attention to Chaska MN, where disability rights activist Noah McCourt has filed suit over a social media ban.

Let's allow the news article to speak for itself. Congratulations to Noah; keep giving the stuffed shirts hell, my friend.

Chaska ordered to allow Waconia man to access its social media accounts, by Katy Read (Star Tribune)

His critical comments about city's police, its chief led to his being blocked.

A Waconia man has settled a suit with the city of Chaska for blocking his access to the city’s public social media accounts.

Noah McCourt received a $1,005 settlement, and the city was ordered to unblock his access, revise its social media policies and train its staffers on First Amendment applications to social media accounts.

McCourt also will have his legal fees reimbursed. He is policy director of the Minnesota Autism Council and a member of the Minnesota Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities.

McCourt was blocked from the Chaska Police Department’s Twitter account for comments he posted about the department and from posting comments on the police Facebook page. Police Chief Scott Knight and Lt. Chris George were defendants in the suit.

McCourt said he criticized the Chaska police for “unnecessary roughness and aggression” when dealing with people with disabilities. He said he had also posted that Knight had “a very large ego.”

The city and McCourt agreed on an offer of judgment, under which the city agreed to the payment and policy changes in order to avoid lengthy litigation, said Hannah Felix, a lawyer with the League of Minnesota Cities who represented Chaska.

“For me it was never really about the money,” McCourt said. “It’s more like people just deserve to be treated equitably.”

McCourt has been unblocked from the Chaska accounts, and city officials are reviewing the “terms of use” policies on those accounts, said Kevin Wright, the city’s communications manager.

“There’ll still be a policy in place, and you’re going to have to abide by these guidelines in order to participate,” he said ... 

Damn straight I'm paying close attention to Chaska MN, where disability rights activist Noah McCourt has filed suit over a social media ban.

I richly enjoy keeping up with Noah McCourt.

You'll recall that in 2015, Noah and I got to know each other when he ran unsuccessfully for 6th district council (GOP) in New Albany. He later moved back to Minnesota and has stayed very much involved there.

Even from afar, Noah's principled activism is a joy. Who says young people don't get it?

Not me.

Given the many times local political players -- virtually all of them undemocratic Democrats -- have blocked social media access by NA Confidential, you can bet I'm keeping tabs on Noah's latest.

Disability rights activist files First Amendment suit challenging Chaska PD social media ban (Red Lake Nation News)

Noah McCourt is a well-known activist in the areas of mental health and disability rights. In addition to being appointed to the Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities, Noah serves on a number of non-profit and government boards. As part of his advocacy, Noah has been critical and sometimes litigates against government agencies that fail to provide inclusive services and accessible facilities for disabled people. He has filed suit against the Chaska Police Department over their social media policy after being banned from their Twitter site.

In November 2017, the Chaska Police Department started a Twitter site. The site is funded under the department’s budget. The site references a social media policy that allows the department to remove certain posts or people not using their proper names but it has no provision for banning people based on critical posts.

Noah began posting to the Chaska PD Twitter site shortly after it was started. Many of his posts were critical of Chaska PD’s handling of people in mental health crisis. In February 2018, he learned he had been blocked from the Chaska PD Twitter site. He was not notified by any Chaska employee that he was blocked and he was not provided with any process for challenging his exclusion from the site. He complained to the city but never got a response. Noah filed suit to challenge his exclusion from the site and the city’s social medial policy, which violates the First Amendment and encourages censorship of protected activity.

In explaining his lawsuit, Noah said, “When the Chaska PD started their Twitter site, they created a public forum. By excluding people from a public forum, they violate the First Amendment rights of those who disagree with them.”

Civil rights attorney Zorislav Leyderman stated “Noah’s lawsuit is believed to be one of the earliest to challenge social media censorship in the Eighth Circuit [which includes Minnesota] but there is strong precedent in decisions coming out of other federal circuits.”

In a May 2018 declaratory judgment in Knight Institute v Trump, Federal Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald found that Donald Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked critics on social media. "This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, ‘block’ a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no.”

The case is expected to be heard in Federal Court later this year.

The Economist on the WHCD, Michelle Wolf and snowflaking: "In the age of Trump, calls for civility are calls for servility."

As we debated the idiotic White House event,
"Ten journalists among 36 killed in Afghanistan attacks."

At Medium, writer John Zeratsky explains "Why I ignore the daily news and read The Economist instead (and how you can too)."

For anyone who’s weary of the frantic daily news cycle, The Economist is a breath of fresh air. It’s a London-based weekly magazine (although they call themselves a newspaper) covering global political, social, economic, and business news. They are moderate, quirky, and unconventional.

Zeratsky's analysis almost perfectly mirrors my own, except that I've been reading The Economist since 1988, and subscribing during all but a handful of these years.

A few years back, The Economist explained itself.

Is The Economist left- or right-wing? Neither. We consider ourselves to be in the "radical centre."

I offer these two preludes as preparation to consume the main course, which is Michelle Wolf, and what we're to make of her monologue at a dinner which shouldn't even take place -- and the fact that while this is the main point, it's being missed in the usual hyped-up furor over showflaking.

The Economist's take is spot on, so here it is, in its entirety, with the important passages highlighted.

---

The Wolf at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, by J.F. (The Economist)

In the age of Trump, calls for civility are calls for servility

FULL disclosure: I have never been to a White House Correspondents’ Dinner; I will never go to a White House Correspondents’ Dinner. The American political press already has a bias toward reverence and access preservation; journalists yukking it up with powerful people whom they are supposed to cover impartially is unseemly. Partly for this reason, The Economist has for several years not sent anyone along. Usually the dinner passes in a flurry of photos and articles about who wore what, which celebrity sat at which publication’s table and a recounting of the hokey jokes told by whichever safe comedian they wangled into hosting. But occasionally something more interesting happens.

Over the past two days Washington has worked itself into a tizzy over Michelle Wolf’s unusually scathing monologue. She mocked everyone: Donald Trump (“the one pussy you’re not allowed to grab”), Kellyanne Conway (“If a tree falls in the woods, how do we get Kellyanne under that tree”), Ivanka Trump (“about as helpful to women as an empty box of tampons”), Sarah Huckabee Sanders (“She burns facts and then uses the ashes to create a perfect smoky eye”), and the press (“[Mr Trump] helped you sell your papers and your books and your TV. You helped create this monster, and now you’re profiting off him.”).

Matt Schlapp, a conservative lobbyist and the husband of Mercedes Schlapp, a White House communications director, tweeted that he and his wife “walked out early from the wh correspondents dinner. Enough of elites mocking all of us”—though precisely what definition of “elite” includes a stand-up comic but excludes high-ranking White House officials remains unclear. Several people, liberals as well as conservatives, demanded that Ms Wolf apologise for mocking Mrs Sanders’s appearance—though of course Mr Trump has made juvenile derision of people’s looks his stock-in-trade.

Margaret Talev, the head of the White House Correspondents’ Association, tut-tutted that Ms Wolf’s monologue “was not in the spirit of [our] mission,” which was “to offer a unifying message about our common commitment to a vigorous and free press while honouring civility [and] great reporting…not to divide people.”

Among those who failed to receive that message, apparently, was Mr Trump, who in a nifty bit of counterprogramming held a rally in Washington, Michigan during the correspondents’ dinner. He skipped the event for the second straight year. Mr Trump accused the media—whom he has previously called “the enemy of the American people”—of making up sources and hating his supporters who attended the rally. One worked-up attendee at the rally screamed at reporters, whom he called “degenerate filth”, to leave the country.

After the speech, Mr Trump’s people pressed their advantage. Mrs Schlapp told a reporter that “journalists should not be the ones to say that the president or his spokesman is lying.”

This raises an obvious question—if not journalists, then whom?—with an equally obvious answer: nobody. Mr Trump’s communication staff would prefer it if nobody pointed out when he and his media team lie.

Ms Talev invited Mrs Sanders to sit at the head table because she “thought it sent an important decision about…government and the press being able to work together.” But of course, that is precisely what should never happen, particularly with an administration as ambivalent about the First Amendment—among other norms and laws—as this one. (The Justice Department recently removed a section entitled “Need for Free Press and Public Trial” from its internal manual for federal prosecutors.)

Calls for press-corps civility are in fact calls for servility, and should be received with contempt. Some might argue that insults do not deserve the same protection as investigative journalism, but that is a distinction without a difference. Anyone who wants to outlaw or apologise for the former will end up too timid to do the latter.

In open societies, self-censorship—in the name of civility, careerism or access preservation—is a much greater threat to the media than outright repression. The only person owed an apology here is Ms Wolf, for being scolded by the very people who invited her to speak, and who purport to defend a “vigorous and free press.”

Robert Mapplethorpe, the First Amendment, and "a generation of artists ... wiped out by AIDS."

When Robert Mapplethorpe died in 1989, I was tantalizingly close to completing my period of employment at UMI-Data Courier, and getting back to Europe to work for the Commies in East Berlin.

My snazzy job title at Data Courier was "associate editor," or some such. For a year and a half, I read and abstract magazine articles for an emerging CD Rom data base, and although the spirit-crushing corporate mentality chafed, it wasn't a bad gig at all, and my closest experience to grad school.

They paid me to learn. Writing the abstracts could be done in one's sleep, and overall, it was a means to an end.

My introduction to Mapplethorpe's work came less from the actual images than the backlash they produced.

ARTS AND FIRST AMENDMENT: Public funding of controversial art, by Bill Kenworthy (First Amendment Center)

Throughout history artists have produced works which tested society’s standards of decency. Society, or parts of it, may respond to these controversial works with harsh criticism and scorn. In free societies, artists may produce any type of work that their talent, imagination and means can support, whether it is controversial or not. However, the question arises: Do artists have the same freedom when their art is publicly funded by taxpayer dollars?

On one side, Jesse Helms; on the other, Mapplethorpe. It makes it remarkable easy to pick your team. There is a new documentary film about Mapplethorpe, prompting reflections about how far we've come since the 1980s -- and haven't.

A generation of artists were wiped out by Aids and we barely talk about it, by Suzanne Moore (The Guardian)

... I was explaining this to my 25-year-old daughter. She understood what happened, but said, “I just can’t imagine it”. And somehow nor can I, but we lived through it. HIV, we say, is now no longer a death sentence. But, of course, it is in many parts of the world. South Africa has a 19% HIV rate. Russian is only just starting to admit the scale of its problem with an estimate of 1.5 million people with HIV. Neither homosexuality nor addiction can be spoken about in Putin’s Russia.

Mapplethorpe’s work was censored by US senator Jesse Helms who, like many Republicans, saw Aids as a punishment for homosexuality. Nancy and Ronald Reagan pretty much signed up to this line. Republicans banned needle exchanges. The Catholic church banned condoms. Mapplethorpe’s work is shot through the lens of his Catholic upbringing, the black mass and rituals of S&M – his composition, his invocation of the devil not as a metaphor, but as a living presence.

He was but one of a generation of artists, activists and athletes wiped out by Aids. Why don’t we speak about this anymore?

"I can attest to the idea that we do not trust someone else to tell our stories."

The author is a professor at the University of Missouri. Recent events there are summarized adequately at Wikipedia: 2015 University of Missouri protests.

Mislán's article caught my attention because of her digression about journalism and "white media." It's something our local Jeffersonville newspaper might be interested in examining.

At Missouri, 'right now, we are facing the backlash', a commentary by Cristina Mislán (PRI's The World)

 ... First, let’s understand that the First Amendment does not only cover journalists. Both journalists and the students demonstrating against the institution had a right to that public space. The student activists, who have been vulnerable since they first planted their feet on campus, attempted to create a safe space so that they could manage how they would tell their own stories. They simply wanted respect and safety, two rights that they have not received on campus ...

 ... Since my scholarship directly relates to media activism and social movements as they pertain to race, gender and class, we need some context about the mistrust communities of color have of journalists. The reality is that many communities of color do not trust the mainstream media. Historically, marginalized voices have sought to create their media due to the consistent inaccurate portrayals of their communities and issues. The mainstream media, sometimes perceived as the “white media” by some, is known to produce stereotypical representations that continue to reinforce the idea that brown and black individuals are angry and violent.

As someone whose father has often told me that the media lie, I can attest to the idea that we do not trust someone else to tell our stories.

Tonight: Censorship and the First Amendment ... and can a book change a life?

First, an announcement from Destinations Booksellers about tonight's program.

TONIGHT: ATTORNEY JON FLEISCHAKER, presented by the Media Law Resources Center Institute, the local chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, and Destinations Booksellers.

TOPIC: Censorship and the First Amendment. 7 p.m. at Destinations Booksellers, 604 E. Spring St., New Albany, Indiana.

Following the same link, Randy "Bookseller" Smith considers whether a book can change a life.

I do come down on the side that asserts that a book can change a life. Sometimes explaining it is so simple as to be unnecessary, but most of the time it requires a story.

My answer is yes, and perhaps a series of books can do the trick, as with the set of circa-1960 issue Compton's Encyclopedia, which my parents purchased around the time I was born during the same year.

These books are among my earliest memories. I looked at the photos and illustrations, and almost surely -- to some extent -- taught myself to read by doing so. That's a life-changer in itself, but the sensation goes further. The photos that made the biggest impression were the ones of other countries and places, which led to a strong urge to read so as to learn more about them. Later I was able to visit some of these places. Some day, maybe others.

Upcoming presentation on blogging, Internet journalism and First Amendment issues.

I ran into Robyn Sekula yesterday and she told me about a forthcoming event that could be of interest to local bloggers, although it's doubtful we'll be seeing Professor Erik or Dan Coffey in attendance.

If this presentation is of interest to you, let me know and I'll provide you the contact information or forward your thoughts to Robyn.

---

So you’ve posted a new item on your web site or blog. Comments began pouring in. But one commenter says that the main story subject beats his wife. Can you edit that? Can you delete it? What if you do nothing and the comment goes live – can you be sued? And does it make a difference if the person who posts the comment is anonymous?

Noted media and first amendment attorney Jon L. Fleischaker will guide you through these murky waters in a noon presentation for the Society of Professional Journalists. The event will be held Tuesday, January 26, at Louisville Public Media, 619 S. Fourth Street, in the performance studio. The program is $10 for SPJ members, $12 for non-members and includes a box lunch and drink from City Café.

Don’t miss your opportunity to learn how to handle this emerging media problem from the foremost expert on First Amendment issues in the region. SPACE IS LIMITED. Deadline for reservations is Thursday, January 21.

Drop the book slowly and show me your hands.

Local bookseller Randy Smith reports that Governor Mitch Daniels and the Indiana legislature recently passed into law H.B. 1042, a statute making it mandatory, under threat of arrest for a Class B misdemeanor and imprisonment for up to 180 days, for any person or business selling “sexually explicit materials, products, or services” to provide a complete list of such products and pay a $250 dollar registration fee to the Secretary of State who will then forward the information to local government officials.

As Randy explains:

Well, you might say, what's so wrong with that?

Let's just for a moment take a look at a few of the books that would qualify as "sexually explicit."

Hoosier Theodore Dreiser's An American Tragedy would top the list. The Holy Bible certainly contains sexually explicit material. Our Bodies, Ourselves is clearly sexually explicit as are any number of parenting guides that help people teach their children about their bodies.

NA Books Daily: Daniels, Legislature Besiege Booksellers...and Freedom

Email if you're interested in placing a group order for "You can have my book when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers" bumper stickers. A portion of the proceeds might go toward Randy's bail.