The People Vs Larry Flynt Essay Research

The People Vs Larry Flynt Essay, Research Paper The People vs. Larry Flynt After watching the movie The people vs. Larrry Flynt , and observing his characters suggestion that, society should be more concerned with the regulation s of the depiction of violence instead of focusing on obscenity. “If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it will protect all of you.

The People Vs Larry Flynt Essay, Research Paper

The People vs. Larry Flynt

After watching the movie The people vs. Larrry Flynt , and observing his characters suggestion that, society should be more concerned with the regulation s of the depiction of violence instead of focusing on obscenity. “If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it will protect all of you. Because I’m the worst.” Under this blazon The People vs. Larry Flynt advances. Flynt is the publisher of Hustler whose career in the porno-mag business and whose tangled by the people opinions and statement about his magazine. I found that there is a point to his statement. This paper will construct a discussion based upon the statement by Larry Flynt s character. And look at Obscenity and Violence in society. The statement was a direct relation to the Freedom of speech argument put forward by many people.

The movie The People vs. Larry Flynt is somewhat simular to the movie South Park: Bigger: Longer and Uncut is the same aspect that it is trying to prove a point. Although it seemed to me that it was doing this in a more comical way, opposed the The People vs. Larry Flynt . The name of the movie itself explains the fact that people (referring to the people that didn t read the magazine) were against Larry Flynts magazine Hustler yet his dream (having the best pornographic magazine) was seen appropriate by himself as he once said the human body is a beautiful thing and is like nature why not be aloud to show it off .

Obscenity is such a relative term. The complexity of our society today, and the diversity of beliefs that exist, demands that we not judge based upon averages because it is impossible to create such a standard. What must be realized is that people will have varying beliefs dealing not only with obscenity but also with every issue present today. Only by allowing uninhibited personal freedom can it work to create an environment that does not exclude certain beliefs because the “majority” doesn’t condone them. The illegal actions of certain individuals (i.e. gang rape, murder etc.) seemingly inspired by magazines such as Hustler are simply anomalies concurrent with the general decay of society.

Obscenity is very much in the eye of the beholder. There are many things people would rather not have to look at. Freedom of Speech already has limits (e.g. Yelling “FIRE” in a theatre, or Slander, Verbal assault). Unlimited freedom of speech means that the Newspapers could print whatever (even though they seem to do this already almost) it wanted to, without worrying about the truth. As it stands, protected speech is limited to opinions, viewpoints, and the truth. A naked woman (or man) is not in itself obscene but camera angles which simulate a viewpoint of a woman which only a Gynaecologist has seen probably isn’t portraying (to me anyway) the beauty and natural flow of the human body and beloved not to be art. The limits on freedom of speech apply to public speech. Private speech is unlimited free speech.

I have put together some viewpoint that I came across in my research and found that they had a lot to say. My viewpoint is this. If you think it is obscene then that is because you don’t believe in it and your belief is only opinion. To the people that think this is obscene I have disturbing news. You people obviously never seen the darkest corners and alleys of life if you had you would find that they are so much more disturbing then the hustler magazine. To the people I have this to say. A nude picture does not make you do drugs and does not make you kill a man. Here is the bottom line what one does not know one is scared of and what one is scared of one try’s to destroy. Can you imagine if the whole world was scared thick about it. I believe in Larry Flynt and living in this great free country and after all we the people are the ones who make it free (Joesph, 1997).

It is amazing to me that people, time and time again forget their past. There are and there have always been people who, for their beliefs alone, have attempted to define what is obscene. Even William Shakespeare in his time was ridiculed and censored for the contents of his work, The Taming of the Shrew, for instance. (And I am not saying that Hustler is comparative to Will’s plays) I don’t believe that anything in the entertainment industry is really obscene. War is obscene, a country that allows its citizens to die due to the lack of affordable healthcare is obscene, and allowing people to be homeless is obscene. Turning your back on anyone who needs your help is obscene. If this country and our government put as much time and lip service into solving these problems instead of trying to moralize America, then our children would grow up decent. My son isn’t going to remember a naked picture of a lady as much as he is going to remember the sight of a disabled man sleeping in a doorway and digging through the garbage for food. And for the good Christian in his crusade against the sins of the flesh, wouldn’t your time be better spent volunteering in your community? Which one do you think God would notice more? (Michelle, 1997). Those viewpoints are rather interesting as they hold means to the statement the Larry Flynt made.

When someone must go out of their way to get the magazine, it is easier to defend the freedom of that less public speech. Kids will still get their hands on it, but that will not be Hustler’s fault. I don’t think that Hustler belongs next to Nintendo magazine, but Hustler definitely has a right to print what it wants, as long as the only people who see it are people not offended by it.

Violence is one of those endemic social problems that have plagued society since its earliest beginnings. It truly displays the savagery that we, as a people, are capable of. It illustrates both the confusion and anger of the oppressed and ignored within our society and the brutal savagery which the privileged and powerful are capable of.

Violence is often the voice of those who would have no voice. Violence is a tool of the weak and ignored, those who cannot exert control in any other way. While our society prides itself on representing all people it conveniently omits a plethora of phrases that should follow. It represents all people…that have money. It represents all people…that have power. It represents all people…that have influence. So long as you can afford it, non-violence is the best route to solving our problems, but tell that to the poor drug addicts of the inner city. Tell that to the vilified idealistic radicals who are ignored and have no voice. Tell that to the oppressed minority who is not regarded or treated as a human being. Violence is the tool of ignorance and so long as society forcibly refuse to educate our people they will see violence as the only answer to their problems.

In conclusion the contiversal statement by Larry Flynt that society should be more concerned about regulating the depiction of violence instead of focusing on obscenity . This is an unanswered question that society try s to deal will one of the problems more greatly then the other and therefore looked as picking on that particular wrights, or freedom. The argument stands that the human body is a beautiful thing and is one with nature, for this reason is should be viewed and shown freely to the world. Yet in the same respect it also should not be exploited in anyway. And I believe that the people that opposed Larry Flynt sore this to be true as the women that were photograph for his magazine were in exploited position, not in there natural state or beauty.

Bibliography guffmain017097.html

The People vs. Larry Flynt