Wyoming Valley Art League To Meet 
The Wyoming Valley Art League Will Hold Its January Meeting At 7:30 P.m.

Abrupt Dismissals Leave Bad Feelings

Wednesday, January 08, 1997 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Page: 





Flynt decision protects newspaper's right to publish offensive editorials &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Not being an author of children's horror novels, I apologize for the lack
of unimaginative, fantasy-filled hyperbole that filled your editorial ``People
vs. Larry Flynt'' (Dec. 28)It appears the editors were making an attempt at
classical literature in order to distance themselves from the filthy minds of
lesser beings not so sexually frustrated. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In your editorial, you applauded the actions of the American Civil
Liberties Union in defending the right of the Klan to march in Skokie and that
"we were all civil libertarians back then. Then something changed." &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 I think I know what has changed. Where you defended the Constitution and
civil liberties when it did not affect you directly, you lash out when free
expression impacts your life -- even if only to allow the existence of works
you disagree with. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 The Constitution's protection of free speech is there to protect
dissenters, extremists and artists -- the people whom others find offensive.
In the end, it protects your freedom of expression, too. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 There is no need for an amendment that protects things no one would try to
silence. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Saying as you do that "this majority could grant the Klan their march
confident that the march would have little impact" does not a civil
libertarian make. The test of your dedication to freedom comes when it means
allowing the speech that will cause you some discomfort although no physical
danger. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 In the Archie vs. Hustler situation, this is not even the case. If you do
not like Hustler, do not read it. No one is forcing it upon you. God knows,
having just read Archie, I do not believe it will be on my reading list in the
future. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 You state that "sexual modesty in public is crucial to the soul of a
society -- or so Amercians once thought." &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 In Europe, "sexual modesty in public" is not so crucial. In fact, their
attitudes toward sexuality generally are far more relaxed. European
civilization is not on the verge of collapse and has survived far longer than
our own. Additionally, Rome and Greece are well known for what I assume you
would interpret as "slouching toward Gomorrah" and their civilizations lasted
for ages until the advent of Christiandom. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Citing Gomorrah as the epitome of sinfulness reflects the common attempt to
pick and choose our perversions and vices. Usually the "morally upright" thing
to do just so happens to correspond with our personal actions, and we often
cannot help but to insist others share this same "morality." &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 It appears that this reference to Gomorrah by the editors as well as by
Robert Bork from whom it was taken are both an attempt to use "moral
indignation to permit envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue,"
to quote Erich Fromm. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 The bottom line is that it is just a bit hypocritical to blame the fall of
Western civilization on greater expression of human sexuality in a society
that promotes violence and intolerance at every turn. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 It comes as no surprise that you would quote Robert Bork in your editorial.
It is important to remember for the record that Mr. Bork is a man who has
testified before Congress without reservation that he would eviscerate the
First and Ninth Amendments as we know them today. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 It does come as a surprise, however, that you use Mark Twain for support of
your holy war against free expression. Instead of providing quotations of
which there are many, let me just suggest that you read Twain's "Letters from
the Earth." &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 This is a book that his family did not consent to publish for many years
because they found it offensive. Yes, censorship. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Once read, it is unlikely that you will use Mr. Twain as an assumed
supporter of your ideas. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 While Larry Flynt has his faults, two things are clear: 1) He fought for
free expression at great personal cost, including being crippled by some
God-fearing gunman; 2) despite your editorial's title, "People vs. Larry Flynt
ignores case's complexities,"it is your staff that has ignored the case's
complexities. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 The court case in question was not about Larry Flynt. It was about the rest
of us. It was about whether a public figure could recover damages every time
his or her feelings were hurt. The Supreme Court said no. The right to free
speech includes the right to be offensive. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 It is offensive publications like your editorial that the Larry Flynt
decision protects. When newspapers start backing away from discussing the
complexities of why free speech must be defended -- to paraphrase your
editorial -- it is a true foreshadowing of a tragic and frightening fall. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Louis R.X. Macareo &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Wyoming &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Flynt Decision Protects Newspaper's Right To Publish Offensive Editorials 
Not Being An Author Of Children's Horror Novels, I Apologize For The Lack Of 
Unimaginative, Fantasy-filled Hyperbole That Filled Your Editorial ``people 
Vs. Larry Flynt'' (dec. 28).

Flynt Decision Protects Newspaper's Right To Publish Offensive Editorials Not Being An Author Of Children's Horror Novels, I Apologize For The Lack Of Unimaginative, Fantasy-filled Hyperbole That Filled Your Editorial ``people Vs. Larry Flynt'' (dec. 28).