So when a pair of nephews Flynt personally groomed for the porn business decided to launch their own company last year and use the family name, the creator of "Barely Legal," "Busty Beauties" and "Daddy Gets Lucky" wasted no time suing the upstarts for trademark infringement.

Flynt accused his brother Jimmy Flynt's sons in federal court of tarnishing his image by launching Flynt Media Corp. and producing a series of videos he says are nothing but cheap knockoffs.

"The junk they publish hurts my reputation, which in turn hurts my revenue," the gruff, gravelly voiced porn king testified in U.S. District Court this week, where a Flynt family feud is playing out before a stone-faced jury and a no-nonsense judge.

The four women and four men of the mostly middle-aged jury stoically viewed photos of some of the nephews' DVD boxes. Images of naked, well-endowed women on the front and people in all sorts of contortions on the back, were flashed on a giant-screen TV right next to them.

A few jurors scribbled notes. Some studied the images carefully. But there was nary a snicker, a blush nor a smile.

With Judge A. Howard Matz bearing down on the attorneys to keep things moving, the jury was expected to get the case by late Friday afternoon. Flynt is seeking unspecified damages.

The porn mogul, who was paralyzed in an assassination attempt in 1978, sat in court in his gold-plated, velvet-lined wheelchair Tuesday and Wednesday.

He testified that his nephews, Jimmy Flynt Jr. and Dustin Flynt, were a pair of bumbling, incompetent employees that he only kept on the payroll for years out of a sense of family obligation.

Jimmy Jr. worked for him for 17 years and Dustin Flynt for 10, and both had risen to management positions at Larry Flynt Publications before they were fired in November 2007.

"I felt they were doing a horrible job," said Flynt, who owns Hustler magazine and other publications, operates Internet Web sites, retail stores, produces films, owns pricey real estate and even markets a line of clothing.

Their father, who isn't named in the lawsuit, is fighting his own battle with Flynt in Ohio, suing his brother for attempting to evict him from a building in Cincinnati where he operates a Hustler retail store.

Larry Flynt, whose privately owned company has been said to be worth tens of millions of dollars, testified Wednesday that he terminated his brother last year to save money for his legal battle against the nephews.

Soon after being fired, Jimmy Jr. launched Flynt Media Corp. and brought his younger brother aboard. They produced a handful of sexually explicit videos before Flynt got a court order shutting down their business pending the outcome of the lawsuit.

Jimmy Jr., 37, and Dustin Flynt, 34, testified that when they named their company and began producing videos with "FLYNT" in large letters on the boxes they had no intention of being confused with their uncle.

Although not household names to mainstream audiences as their uncle is, both insisted they are celebrities within the more insular world of porn and would be quickly found out if they tried to pass their work off as his.

"There was nothing to gain in trying to trick the trade," said Jimmy Flynt Jr., who bears a striking resemblance to his square-jawed uncle.

They also said their videos are classy, the design of the boxes less cluttered and more modern than what their uncle's company puts out and the sex is done tastefully.

"With the new line we are looking to bring back the class and elegance of erotica," said Dustin Flynt.

For his part, Larry Flynt acknowledged that although he long ago trademarked his well-known Hustler brand, he never got around to trademarking his name.

"I just never heard of someone using someone else's name," he said.

Still, he said, that name often appears on Hustler-produced videos, frequently on the top of the box, in the words "Larry Flynt's Private Collection."

And that, Flynt and his lawyers say, is an assurance to purchaser that they're getting the highest-quality porn their money can buy.

More ...

Larry Flynt Gets Sued by Brother

The Cincinnati Enquirer, 5/23/09 - A family feud involving porn publisher Larry Flynt boiled over Friday in Hamilton County when Flynt was sued by his brother, Jimmy Flynt, over a rent dispute involving the Downtown Hustler store.

Jimmy Flynt filed the Friday case, accusing brother Larry Flynt – the Hustler magazine publisher who presides over a media empire – of “sheer retaliation” by trying to evict him from the 411 Elm St. building that houses the Hustler business owned by Jimmy Flynt.

Larry Flynt is upset, the suit notes, because Jimmy Flynt’s two sons are using the Flynt name in a porn venture not affiliated with Larry Flynt -- and could be seen as competition for the porn king.

Larry Flynt has filed a federal lawsuit in California against Flynt Media Corp., the business owned by Jimmy Flynt’s sons, Dustin and Jimmy Flynt II. Larry Flynt alleges trademark infringement in that case.

“Larry has stopped Jimmy’s salary through (Larry Flynt’s companies) without just cause and without explanation,” Jimmy Flynt’s suit notes.

“Larry has began (sic) to take adverse action (Jimmy Flynt). Larry has threatened to take away Jimmy’s livelihood to include all sources of income in an attempt to settle the California action ‘on his terms.’ ”

The suit accuses Larry Flynt of falsely accusing Jimmy Flynt of being late on the rent for the Cincinnati Hustler store.

Jimmy Flynt owns the store but leases the building from Larry Flynt’s companies.

Jimmy Flynt said it was a misunderstanding and when it was pointed out, he paid his brother more than $31,000 in owed rent.

Despite that, Jimmy Flynt said his brother is insisting on kicking him out of the Elm Street store, a move that would kill that business.

“Literally, (Larry Flynt) is attempting to run Jimmy Flynt out of business, thereby destroying his very livelihood that he has spent years building in partnership with Larry Flynt,” the suit notes.

It adds that the Hustler store Downtown opened in 2000 and sells magazine, clothing and other items.

The suit seeks to have a judge order Larry Flynt not to evict Jimmy Flynt from the store.

Larry Flynt at the University of Michigan

Grand Rapids Press, 4/5/08 - He's best known as a publisher of pornography. But Larry Flynt also knows a thing or two about freedom of speech.

Flynt, who made his name publishing Hustler magazine, spoke to a crowd of about 100 people Saturday at the University of Michigan Law School. He was in town for the Ann Arbor Film Festival screening of a new documentary about his life, "Larry Flynt: The Right to be Left Alone."

Flynt, who uses a wheelchair because he was shot and partially paralyzed in 1978, opened his speech decrying the "dismantling" of the Constitution by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 attacks, including through domestic surveillance and asserting the right to ignore habeas corpus - the need to show evidence to keep someone in jail - in certain cases.

"In the wake of 9/11, government (did) what they always do, they try to scare you..." said Flynt, who also gained notoriety through several well-publicized prosecutions and lawsuits.

Speaking more directly about First Amendment issues, Flynt said everyone has their own idea of what free speech does or doesn't include. He said hate speech, pornography and flag burning are examples of where many people draw the line.

"My position is, you can scream 'fire' in a crowded theater," Flynt said. "If someone gets hurt because of that, that's what you'll get prosecuted for."

Flynt also said that in American society, it's permissible to print a photo of a decapitated, mutilated body, but not of two people having sex.

"It says we condone violence and condemn sex," Flynt said.

Flynt blamed "radical feminists" for the failure to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s.

"I just have a problem with the feminist movement, and I wanted to ventilate a few minutes," Flynt said.

Alluding to the title of the new documentary about his life, Flynt said: "The greatest right any nation can afford its people is the right to be left alone."

In response to questions from the audience, Flynt said:

• He "abhors" hate speech but doesn't think it should be banned.

• The age of consent for having sex should be standardized, probably at 16 or 17 years old.

• His purpose in offering money for information about sexual indiscretions of politicians is to expose their hypocrisy, not their sex lives.

• There's no evidence that pornography harms anyone.

• Prostitution should be legalized.

Joan Brooker-Marks, who made the new documentary about Flynt and accompanied him to the speech, said afterward that she made the movie because of Flynt's significance to First Amendment issues.

"What a wonderful opportunity to explore the issue with such a visible and important man," Brooker-Marks said.

Law student Troy Flake said he came to the speech because of his interest in freedom of speech issues. But he questioned Flynt's assertion that there's no evidence pornography hurts anyone.

"My personal belief is that pornography is destructive," Flake said. He cited a 2005 Congressional report on Internet pornography as evidence.

Anya Pavlov-Shapiro, co-chair of the Law School Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the organization invited Flynt to speak in part because he raises free speech issues that aren't easy.

"Free speech (isn't) about the things which make everybody happy," Pavlov-Shapiro said. "You talk about free speech for the things that (make) people unhappy."

Larry Flynt Gets Hissed at Harvard

The Harvard Crimson, 4/24/06 - At a speech on the First Amendment, Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler Magazine, made what seemed to be false assertions about the format of his presentation and his publishing of certain cartoons while drawing hisses from the crowd for using a racial epithet and describing women as "sex objects."

In a talk before a crowd of 200 in Harvard Law School’s Ames Courtroom Friday, Flynt emphasized the need to "push the envelope" on the First Amendment, saying that he had spent his life fighting in "the trenches" and "had taken a bullet for free speech."

"If you’re going to live in a free society, you have to tolerate certain things that you don’t like so that you can be free," Flynt said.

The short speech was followed by a lively session in which students—who handed questions to a moderator—grilled Flynt on his refusal to debate critics and on the content of Hustler.

HUSTLING HARVARD?

In the first question after the speech, Flynt was asked why he declined to participate in a forum "where he would have to share the spotlight with his critics."

Responding strongly, Flynt denied that he had ever turned down a debate, saying that he would "come back for a panel" if invited. The reason for the solo forum, he said, was that he is filming a documentary and his camera crew said a debate format would be unsuitable.

But this claim was refuted by documents obtained by The Crimson regarding the planning of Flynt’s visit. The documents illuminate communications from Flynt’s agent—not Flynt himself.

The saga of Flynt’s refusal to debate began when his agent, Kim Dower, contacted the American Constitution Society (ACS), the liberal law and policy group, and asked them to host his appearance at Harvard. Brianna J. MacDonald, the ACS publicity chair, wrote in an e-mail to Dower that her group was "hesitant" about inviting Flynt "without allowing for other voices added to the discussion to expand the debate."

In her reply, Dower refused to change the format of the event, writing that it is "difficult for Mr. Flynt to work the debate/panel arrangement as his voice is weaker." She did not mention the camera crew’s supposed concern that a debate would be difficult to film.

The ACS board then voted not to invite Flynt to Harvard. Instead they referred him to the Law School’s American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chapter which agreed to host his speech as a solo forum.

Kevin M. LoVecchio, an ACS member and Flynt critic, said that since Flynt came to Harvard for filming purposes and had refused debate, he was "merely concerned with exploiting the Harvard Law School name." The e-mail from Dower, the Flynt agent, to the ACS supports this assertion: she wrote that she was "trying to provide the filmmaker with a wonderful university to film at."

But Sandra E. Pullman ’02, the president of the Harvard ACLU and a former Crimson arts editor, defended the decision to invite Flynt, saying that the documentary "is being composed by an outside film company, and he’s not making a dime from it." She continued that Flynt had "expanded the reach of free speech [protections through] his precedent-setting defeat of Jerry Falwell."

A CARTOON CONTROVERSY

To discredit Flynt before his arrival on campus, LoVecchio and Mary Anne A. Franks, who had originally been contacted to debate Flynt, created and distributed a pamphlet filled with some of the more offensive cartoon images that have appeared in Hustler.

According to descriptions by LoVecchio that were verified by The Crimson, one cartoon shows a girl with an overly large nose chasing a dollar bill attached to a length of string while a Nazi hides around a corner holding the other end of the string and a baseball bat. In another image, a man, genitals exposed, dangles a piece of steak before a seeing-eye dog to lure a young, blind girl.

Other images displayed in the pamphlet include women being put through meat grinders and a child being kidnapped.

When asked at the event about the images—and the ones that reference Nazis in particular—Flynt said that he could not recall the images under question. After The Crimson handed a copy of the pamphlet to the moderator who in turn showed it to Flynt, he studied it for a moment before saying, "I didn’t publish these." As a couple students shouted "liar!" Flynt took another look at the images, and said, "Well, I don’t know."

The Crimson verified that the images in question had in fact appeared in Hustler.

Flynt also gave his opinion at the event about a different cartoon controversy.

When a student asked if newspapers should publish the Danish cartoons depicting the Islamic Prophet Muhammed, Flynt said that every newspaper in the nation should "publish the cartoons tomorrow," and a "group of towel heads [had gotten] away with intimidating the whole world." The use of the racial slur drew hisses—used at the Law School to signify disapproval—from some in the crowd.

THE WOMEN V. LARRY FLYNT

The anti-Flynt activists also organized a separate speaker event which took place before the main speech.

Professor Gail Dines of Wheelock College, a sociologist who has spent over a decade researching pornography, spoke about the history of the pornographic industry and the role that Flynt has played in its development.

Calling him "first and foremost a capitalist," Dines said that Flynt’s "staff is intensely reactionary and intensely right wing." She went on to argue that pornography is corrosive because it distorts women’s sexuality and turns them into sex objects.

When asked at his event if pornography is destructive, Flynt dismissed the idea out of hand, saying that "you can’t get a group of social scientists together who will argue that [pornography] is harmful," and that such criticisms are made only by the Christian right. He drew hisses again by saying that women "are the sex objects and they’re not going to be able to change that."

ACLU of Harvard Law School Announces Larry Flynt's Visit

The Record, 4/13/06 - On Friday, April 21st at 5pm, the ACLU of HLS invites the law school community to come to the Ames Courtroom to hear Larry Flynt discuss his notorious First Amendment battles. In one of his two Supreme Court appearances, he won a ruling that citizens may lampoon public figures without fear of legal reprisal, a proposition that is central to public discourse.

While Mr. Flynt made headlines in the 1970s for his scandalous publication of Hustler magazine, which sparked high profile obscenity litigation, many students today know the Hollywood version of his life from the 1996 movie, The People vs. Larry Flynt. In the movie, Mr. Flynt was portrayed by the lovable Woody Harrelson -- but in real life, he has made his share of enemies. The Reverend Jerry Falwell sued him for slander, a white supremacist serial killer attempted to assassinate him for publishing pictures of interracial coupling, and anti-pornography feminists have argued that his explicit publications effect the systematic subordination of women. Ultimately, the very controversy surrounding Larry Flynt's public persona is part of the reason to support his appearance at HLS; Flynt's presence is a perfect example of the right to free speech that should not be abridged by a heckler's veto. The ACLU has often come under fire for defending the rights of unpopular figures to express their beliefs. For instance, few in Boston have forgiven the Massachusetts ACLU chapter's infamous defense of the right of segregationists to march through South Boston during the busing crisis. Yet it is the extreme example that proves one's true commitment to civil liberties, even in the face of personal opposition to the content of that protected speech.

This is by no means an attempt to belittle the very real emotions that may be aroused by Mr. Flynt's appearance on campus. Various constituencies have asserted that a publisher of pornography, while not in violation of any criminal statute, is still not an appropriate speaker in an educational community concerned about the protection and promotion of women's interests. The ACLU understands these concerns and plans to make room for those who have strong feelings against pornography. In fact, we are actively recruiting faculty and students for a panel preceding the event in order to present opposing views on this issue, in addition to facilitating any protests that may be organized. However, it is the ACLU's stance that only by a strict adherence to the First Amendment, which allows all types of sexually explicit expression, will we be sure to protect all ideas about sexuality and personal autonomy, however deviant or offensive to others.

The ACLU has come under attack in the controversy surrounding this event on another front. Mr. Flynt will be filming the speech for a documentary about his life. Some have taken this to mean that Mr. Flynt will purport to have the Harvard Law School stamp of approval for his enterprises, or that he will unfairly profit from the Harvard name and the school's reputation. However, Mr. Flynt's biographer, like anyone seeking to film at Harvard University, may not shoot outside on the campus, nor may he include any Harvard insignia in his work. For that reason, there will be a screen covering the Harvard shield behind the judges' bench in the Ames courtroom. Of course, the documentary will acknowledge that his speech took place at Harvard. However, the University has no content-based policy about whose event may be filmed, just as there are no rules about whom students may invite to speak, in keeping with First Amendment values. Hosting such a controversial figure is a sign of the school's commitment to the open exchange of ideas; it is hardly a signal that Harvard itself promotes the publication of pornography. It may be of interest to note that the event will conclude with a question and answer session, in which no topic is off limits. Those who would like to make their mark on Flynt's documentary are invited to do so by contributing their questions to this portion of the presentation.

Ultimately, it is our hope that this event can bring the campus together by bringing thoughtful debate to what has proved to be a very hot-button topic. The ACLU wishes to make clear its commitment to First Amendment freedoms when it comes to controversial opinions, to pornography, and not the least, to protests. As a result, we would like to extend our help to any groups looking to arrange a forum to express a contrary view. Please feel free to email spullman@law.harvard.edu for further assistance.

Kevin LoVecchio Opposes Giving Larry Flynt a Solo Forum

The Record, 4/20/06 - Isn't it ironic that the self-declared embodiment of First Amendment values wants to silence his opposition? Last week, the President of the fledgling HLS chapter of the ACLU published a piece in the Record that painted a rosy picture of Larry Flynt's upcoming visit. It's time to set the record straight: Larry Flynt is coming to HLS to film a documentary about himself and reap personal profits, and he cares nothing about the value of free speech. Flynt, who originally contacted ACS and asked to come to campus for this very purpose, refused to participate in a debate with a student, a panel discussion, or any other sort of forum where his opposition would have an equal voice. After ACS refused to simply cater to Flynt's self-serving motives, ACLU agreed to provide this solo forum. ACLU has since portrayed the opposition to this format for Flynt's visit as an attempt to silence Flynt and prevent him from visiting; this is simply untrue. The truth is that we originally jumped at the chance for him to visit so that we could engage the HLS community in a debate. What we wanted, however, was true "free speech" - meaning that both Flynt and the opposing viewpoints would have a forum for speech and expression. The events that have now been organized to respond to Flynt's visit - including the forum, "Hustling HLS: What Larry Flynt Doesn't Want You to Hear" - are simply meant to provide the other side of the debate that Larry Flynt refused to have.

You might wonder why Flynt is so scared of having an open forum, facing his opposition and allowing for true free speech. The reason is that Flynt has amassed a large fortune by pretending to be someone he's not. Driven in large part by the fluff movie "The People v. Larry Flynt," the popular perception of Flynt holds him out to be some sort of misunderstood crusader who is targeted by fanatical conservatives, hardline anti-pornography feminists, and those who disparage First Amendment liberties. I for one am none of the above. Flynt, however, would have you believe that the only reason I might be writing this article is because I fall into one of those categories. He thrives off creating the perception that his only opposition is the moral majority and the anti-pornography movement, a misperception reinforced by the ACLU's article in the Record last week, which repeatedly characterized Flynt's opponents as being simply anti-pornography and motivated by mere "feelings." But much of the opposition to Flynt and the material he publishes is motivated by a reasoned critique of racism, violence, and hate speech.

During the past week the HLS community has had the opportunity to get a sense of the graphic racist, anti-Semitic, and misogynistic imagery published by the real Larry Flynt. Cartoons filled with Nazi swastikas, racist caricatures, and child molestation are interspersed with depictions of women being gang raped, put through meat grinders, beaten, and kept on leashes. These images, all of which were reprinted from Hustler magazine, have undoubtedly offended many people at the deepest levels; they certainly have offended me. Sadly, these images represent only a small fraction of the shockingly hateful and sickening material that has long filled the pages of Larry Flynt's pet publication, and they aren't even close to the worst of the bunch. These images demonstrate that Hustler is about hate, not sex. The same can be said of Larry Flynt.

Perhaps the best (worst?) and most well-known example of Larry Flynt's proclivities is the long-running "Chester the Molester" cartoon he published regularly in Hustler magazine. These cartoons depicted a man's repeated attack and molestation of very young girls. In one, a young girl reached for a doll placed next to a "free doll to nice little girl" sign while a man hid, waiting with a net to trap her. In another, a man, pants down and genitals exposed, hid behind a corner and dangled a steak on a string to attract a seeing-eye dog leading a blind little girl. "Chester the Molester" also integrated other visions of hatred into its pedophiliac images. For example, one cartoon portrayed a very young girl with a cartoonishly large nose chasing after a dollar bill attached to a string while a man wearing a Nazi armband hid around the corner holding the other end of the string in one hand and a baseball bat in the other. In another, a penis draped in a Nazi flag inexplicably pierces the "o" in the cartoon's title. Interestingly, the "Chester the Molester" cartoon series was published regularly until 1990, when the cartoon's creator, Dwaine Tinsley, was arrested for sexually abusing his own daughter.

I am one of the students and professors who have organized around the cause of genuinely free speech. We oppose giving Larry Flynt a self-aggrandizing, solo forum. We aren't anti-speech and we aren't anti-sex. We don't uniformly disapprove of pornography, and we aren't some fringe faction that demands widespread censorship of sexually explicit materials. What we do believe is that debate and open dialogue should not be censored so that one man can derive a personal profit from his hatred and prejudice. We also believe that the boundaries of the First Amendment in relation to obscenity and hate speech is a critical topic, and a key part of that discussion involves addressing the type of violent, racist, misogynistic and anti-Semitic images that Flynt publishes from behind the shield of the First Amendment. Our goal is to ensure that when Flynt speaks at HLS, he faces a community that is informed about the real nature of his publications and the circumstances of his appearance, in the hopes that he may at least be confronted with challenging, critical questions about the value of his speech.

Larry Flynt's Website

This page contains copyrighted material and is made available to better understand pornography, e.g., its effect on society. It is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in receiving the information for research and educational purposes.