Questo articolo e' stato pubblicato al sito YesPortal il 13 aprile 2004. Robert Black sembra aver chiesto il sostegno monetario di Larry Flynt nella sua lotta contro il governo, per le accuse di oscenita' che pesano su Black e sua moglie Lizzie Borden.
http://www.yesportal.com/news.cfm/2503
======================================
Larry Flynt vs. Rob Black
by Arlo Tolesco
04/13/04
Whatever he did to get himself in this obscenity trial mess, Robert Zicari (aka Rob Black) and his wife, Janet Romano (aka Lizzie Borden) are facing a worst-case scenario of 50-year jail sentences and $2.5 million in fines.
So you can understand why the guy might get a little touchy when the adult industry's most staunch defender of the First Amendment says you dug this hole yourself and I'm not the one who's going to get you out of it.
Last year, a federal grand jury indicted the husband-wife team with nine charges of allegedly distributing obscene materials via the United States Postal Service and the Internet. A tenth charge was that of conspiracy to commit the above crimes.
In a recent interview, Hustler mogul Larry Flynt revealed that Extreme Associates' Robert Zicari had asked him to support his defense fund.
Not only did Flynt deny assistance, but went on to criticize Zicari for bringing his current troubles onto himself and the adult industry at large. Zicari shot back with a 2,700-word diatribe lambasting Flynt for his "right-wing porn agenda" and lack of commitment to defending free speech.
The argument has sparked debate throughout the industry. Has Zicari pushed the limits of decency too far? Or, is the content of his videos secondary to the content of his character?
When Zicari reached out for support, Flynt says he spoke to other producers "who just echoed my feelings, we've got a guy who's bringing a lot of heat on the adult industry...I've been involved in more obscenity cases than probably anybody who's been around now. Sure, I push the envelope. But when I started out in 1974, much of the stuff I'm publishing you can see on cable and satellite TV now. I wasn't going into court and having to say, 'you know, this is garbage, but it's protected under the First Amendment.'"
Flynt appreciates the stakes here, acknowledging that if Zicari goes down, the Feds will use their momentum to prosecute more pornographers. "They'll be coming after the entire industry."
However, Flynt writes off Zicari as the problem himself. "He's trying to say that the reason why we should help with his defense fund is, because if he gets convicted we're next. And he's right. We are next. But it's something that he created."
In short, Zicari is fucking everyone over by presenting a sure-to-lose case. "You don't want a jury of at least half women sitting there seeing this. It's cutting your own throat. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment; it takes an idiot to create a product that he knows he can't defend in court, that's going to send him to prison."
Flynt seems to suggest: do what's best for the business and start covering asses now by distancing the industry from Extreme Associates and marginalizing his violent brand of smut. Don't let a rogue idiot jeopardize, as he puts it, "an industry that everybody is doing very well in. Everyone is following certain guidelines. Not just what they produce but where they ship them to, where they're being sold from. And as a result, this industry has grown from a $600 million industry in the early 1970s to an $11 billion industry today. But it's because, you know, we have businessmen running it, not people that wanted to see how kinky or weird they could get."
Rather than becoming a Flyntesque hero in the fight for free speech, Zicari is quickly becoming the sacrificial lamb. It wasn't so long ago that Extreme Associates were winning AVN, but the masses are quick in recognizing that associating with someone so flamboyantly self-destructive and detrimental to the industry at large could be tantamount to professional/legal suicide. Ultimately, as Flynt is always quick to point out, nobody should have any delusions about the fact that this fight is about making money.
In Zicari's scathing response, one can sense desperation. When the bust first went down, he sounded like a cavalier desperado, ready to be crowned the new champion of free speech. Now, as support erodes around him, he sounds like a man whose very freedom is at stake.
First off, Zakari's right in saying that whether you're a fan of EA's films or not, everything in the videos happens between consenting adults. The violence is fake and doesn't compare in realism to your average action Hollywood flick. The gross-out stunts in Cocktails aren't too far afield from the bug eating bullshit on primetime TV reality shows. And though it may be hard to believe, there are lots of people who get their jollies from this sort of thing.
Zicari's point is well-made in his statement. Even if he hadn't openly taunted the Feds to come after him on Frontline -- even if he hadn't taken the name of deputy LA city attorney Deborah Sanchez (prosecutor in the Seymore Butts obscenity trial) and used it for a character in his movie who gets sodomized with an American flag -- even if his company hadn't put out XXX-slasher rape fest Forced Entry -- regardless of all this baiting, someone somewhere was going on trial. The industry hasn't seen a major Federal obscenity investigation in over ten years. Everyone knows it's election time and the Bush administration has it out for pornographers. Zicari feels like he's the brave one willing to step and take a stand. Now he's ruing the fact that everyone has turned their back on him.
Hasn't Zacari made a point of going it alone all along? It's clear that the lack of support for Zacari isn't as much about content as the fact that he's distanced himself business wise and politically from the rest of the industry. It doesn't help that he's notorious for fucking people over and bouncing checks. What's more vital is this simple fact: when called upon to help out in the Max Hardcore case, Extreme Associates flat out refused. They were asked to provide distribution and sales information about their Extreme Teen line but guarded the information as trade secrets. Furthermore, when Max's lawyer, Jeffrey Douglas, subpoenaed Extreme Associates to produce this evidence, Judge Michael Sauer -- former Los Angeles Chief Obscenity Prosecutor, mind you -- upheld their right to refuse cooperation. This sales info was a key component in establishing what constituted community standards. As Henri Pachard wrote last year for YesPortal, Extreme Associates "claim that they're not on trial -- Max Hardcore is -- so fuck him.. That is so fucking shortsighted, and dangerous for all of us."
When EA refused to pony up the info, lawyer Douglas took it upon himself to commission his own study into the sales data, which then became a key component in the defense's partial victory.
So, with EA's ass on the line now, is it all that surprising that the usual suspects aren't lining up to throw in their support? There's an old saying -- something about making your own bed and having to lie in it -- that comes to mind here.
Robert Black contro Larry Flynt
Moderatori: Super Zeta, AlexSmith, Pim, Moderatore1
Questa e ' la lettera che Robert Black ha scritto a Larry Flyut, pubblicata al sito AVN
[img:746f6a2be5]http://www.avn.com/imagearchive/08/03/6 ... k_lead.jpg[/img:746f6a2be5]
Rob Black's Open Letter to Larry Flynt
By: Robert Zicari
04-12-2004
CHATSWORTH, Calif. - [Ed. note: This is an unedited open letter to Larry Flynt in response to comments Flynt made in a recent interview with AVN.com. That interview was in Flynt's response to comments Zicari made to Reason magazine. Zicari's opinions are his own and are not endorsed by AVN.com ]
As I followed Larry Flynt's career and watched him fight for First Amendment rights, going so far as to take a bullet for what he believed in, now, 30 years later, it seems, based on his recent quotes in Reason Magazine, Larry shoots that same bullet through my heart and he turns his back on fight that he gave up so much for.
If certain people in the adult industry want to speak out against me, I can accept it. They never built their careers on challenging the establishment or pushing the envelope. So, they don't know about, nor can they be put in my situation. But I say to Larry, you should be standing and fighting with me instead of against me. It seems by what I read lately, that you are now part of a somewhat growing group in the business I can only categorize as right wing pornographers. Can this be true?
If this is true and ironic as it may be seem for others in the business to speak out about what the definition of bad taste and/or obscenity may be, I can only call Flynt's membership in this group to be hypocritical, dangerous and dangerously close to that of the Bush administration and current justice department.
Larry, in your response on AVN.com to the Reason magazine article, you point out that in 1974, it all started for Hustler magazine by pushing the envelope on what you were publishing. Now this kind of material can be viewed around the clock on cable and satellite TV. So, are you justifying your actions by saying that because popular culture is accepting of what you create but was once considered obscene? Perhaps 30 years from now, my product that is currently being prosecuted will be deemed appropriate adult entertainment. Larry, if this is really how you feel, you are now exactly what you fought against for years.
What I am under indictment for tests the limits of the current administration position of obscenity, much the same as you did Larry, before I was born.
In 1974, showing a close up of a woman's open vagina was undeniably extreme. You brought to the masses crude and extreme pictures of naked women. It was a magazine with a controversial and some said dangerous edge and I proudly say, what you achieved was revolutionary and still remains a defining moment for freedom of speech and expression. It changed the world of print pornography forever.
Hell, Hefner wanted no part of your world. You were shot, shunned and considered a degenerate, who was a menace to America's self-inflicted morality. When you published nude photos of Jackie Onassis, our memory of Jackie Kennedy was no longer the prettiest wife of a President, ever, holding pieces of John F. Kennedy's bullet ridden head in her hands"you took her from sainthood, victim and martyr to a level of celebrity exploitation that has somehow set the standard that all other tabloid publications follow.
Back when pornography was Playboy and Deep Throat, you came along with spread legs, pink and Beaver of the Month! You were as reviled by some as I am now. The best part of how other adult company owners and producers are responding to my movies is to call them disgusting, revolting and outside of the norm of their own product, which frankly I know most have not seen"and haven't seen their own adult movies.
Of the three movies I am being prosecuted on in Western Pennsylvania, Reason magazine called Cocktails 2 the porn version of the TV show, "Fear Factor."
One of my other titles under indictment, Forced Entry has less gore and reality than Jason vs. Freddy or Gangs of New York
Extreme Teen 24 is not much more extreme than any of Hustler's Barely Legal series of videos. I welcome any director, producer, or company owner in porn to watch any of these three movies and then engage in a discussion with me on what I did that brought the heat down on the industry. Maybe they should take the time to watch their own product first, so they are aware of what they speak.
What I read on AVN.com about my interview in Reason quoted you as saying, "We've got a guy who's bringing a lot of heat on the adult industry." The issue of federal porn prosecutions was nothing I created nor was it anything I contributed to. The only thing I created was myself as target. The article in Reason clearly states pornography prosecution will continue to be an issue for any Republican administration. When Clinton took office, for eight years our business continued to grow by billions of dollars. Had the tragedy of 9/11 not occurred, the Bush administration would have come after our business much quicker than they have now.
But now, last year, as it was time to start looking toward a reelection campaign, the Christian right groups started asking Bush and Ashcroft where the delivery on their pre-election promises were. In 2001, when Bush and Ashcroft vowed to take on the industry, porn was no longer under the radar, you were no longer under the radar, but I still was. It was not until the Frontline piece on PBS in 2002 that, even according to the indictment, the federal government was aware of who I was in their eyes. Do you think that Bush's letter of intent or Ashcroft's similar promises were made based on Extreme Associates? Ask Howard Stern.
Larry, your remark about standing in court and believing that what I produce is garbage? Did you really mean this or even say it? Does it even have to be argued that one man's garbage is another man's art and that without a doubt, each of the movies I am indicted for carry either artistic merit or social commentary? For heaven's sake Larry, you made your fortune showing wide open pussy shots and having plastered the pages of your magazine with secretly taken naked photos of our most beloved First Lady, not to mention Jerry Falwell's treatment or the split beaver (Yes, younger porn fans, an actual split beaver as a "joke.")
None of this may seem as strong as a fictional rape scene performed by consenting adults in Forced Entry, a movie based on the "Nightstalker" a.k.a. Richard Ramirez murders, but to American society in the early ‘70s, your publication was extreme, bold, shocking, that many considered it to contain no redeeming social value, commentary or artistic merit.
And since my admittedly, cheaply produced and executed porno made as a cultish bit of carnality, is declared objectionable to you and people like the Bush Administration because it is presented as a drama and not as a comedy.
Now, do you consider rape a taboo subject for an X-rated drama or is it okay as long as we laugh about it? How else can you explain your new release Tobey Byron's Backcourt Violation? So, let me get this straight. It is acceptable to parody a court case where a young woman is claiming that she was anally raped but not to make a movie pointing out that rape and murder is wrong and a sociopath, rapist and murderer has justice served on him in the end. Of course, Larry you haven't actually seen Forced Entry, I assume so I don't expect you to understand how different our movies are.
Over the years, Hustler magazine became progressively more sexually extreme. Why? Because pornography sells"pure and simple. You also seem to question whether or not my movies matched the responsibility of my first amendment protection. So, in the ‘70s some said the same of Hustler, and Hefner and the government pointed the finger at you, saying what you did was wrong and irresponsible, you fought and argued that your (considered extreme at the time) magazine did was protected by your rights under the First Amendment.
You apparently go on to say in this article that our business is doing very well because companies follow guidelines on what to produce and where to ship movies and "the industry is (has) businessmen running it, not people that wanted to see how kinky or weird they could get." Larry, let me remind you proudly state that your first sexual experience was with a chicken. But I digress.
In and industry that has gone from 600 million dollars of annual business to an 11 Billion per year fiscal juggernaut, you seem to be misguided. What catalyzed the growth was the combination of pop culture and technology. In the 1970s there was no VCR, no DVD Player, no Internet, satellite or cable TV or hotels that play porn in your room around the clock. So what defines community standards when people enjoy adult entertainment behind closed doors, in the privacy or their home, hotel room and often their bed?
If I recall, if you were not able to purchase a copy of Hustler in a certain town, you would send one of your people into the store, defy the police to come and arrest the person selling it, and then have them go to jail. All of that to fight for the right for someone in that town to be able to buy the magazine that you felt was their god given First Amendment right to purchase.
Your life story was out there for us all to see on the big screen, but it seems that now Larry the Freedom Fighter is dead and Larry the Business Man is alive and apparently very well. Your companies are now being run by bean counters, just like mainstream Hollywood,
And then, from what I read, you go on to say you can count on one hand the adult directors "bent on doing, you know, things that are real demeaning toward women." Maybe you don't look far beyond the walls of Hustler, VCA, and Vivid (the porn companies your currently own and/or distribute). My question has to be "What do you consider demeaning?" Most porn companies these days are extreme. And, if you think that Ashcroft finds what I put on video to be demeaning to women, but what you put on video to be "acceptable," then, if that is indeed the way you see things, you are out of touch. Yes, I spoke the loudest, but even so, you and some of my contemporaries don't have the right to say that what I do is demeaning to women claiming your companies are all about class and respect.
How degraded does Kobe Bryant's accuser when she sees her life exploited in a movie released by Larry Flynt? And how did women in general feel when you put a naked woman upside down in a meat grinder on the cover of Hustler?
Perhaps the most disheartening part of what appears to be your recent right wing conservative porn agenda is that you say I brought it on myself, I created my own indictment. Larry, I take full responsibility for a true crime based rape movie that I made. I also took the responsible stance not to sell the movie to any distributors and only make it available direct through Extreme Associates, on our website, www.extremeassociates.com.
When PBS called, me telling me they wanted to do a story on the business asking me to provide them with an ultra extreme scene, I delivered. They asked if I wanted to be the test case for obscenity prosecutions. I told them I didn't necessarily want to be, but that I would accept the position if they forced it on me. Yes, I believe that in 2004 that I should be able to make a movie that combines drama, horror, violence, and sex. I believe I should be able to make a movie about a real serial killer. In this day and age where you can buy Charles Manson T-shirts and Son Of Sam dolls, and multi-platinum rock bands like Guns-N-Roses record a a song written by Charles Manson and movies like Kill Bill and The Passion of Christ considered by some the most gratuitously violent movies of all time, I feel that I have the right to create and adult movie about rape and serial killers who ultimately, pay a price for their crimes.
Just like mainstream Hollywood, The Other Holllywood pays taxes. When Hollywood makes an extreme movie, the film gets an NC-17 rating. If I make an extreme adult movie, the government wants to put me in jail. Mel Gibson, Quentin Tarrantino and the rest are considered true talents while my wife and I are looking at a potential lifetime in jail.
Larry, do you really believe I invited this on myself and deserve what I get? So, when I went to federal court should I have worn our beloved American flag as a diaper as you chose to do? Should I bark like a dog at the reporters as you did? When the judge told me I could not leave Los Angeles without permission should I have chartered a plane and flown to Yankee stadium for opening day, and when a judge wants evidence from me, should I throw oranges at him? If fined, should I have half-naked girls dump thousands of dollar bills in the courtroom? If the judge wants me to do something I don't feel like doing, should I wait for the federal marshals to come and make sure all of the networks have their news cameras in place before I force the marshals to come in and get me? You claimed you were making a statement about your Constitutional rights.
If I chose to do any of those behaviors, some people in our industry would consider me insane and I probably would never be able to follow in your footsteps receiving free speech awards. You taunted the former Republican administrations with every move you made. You even offered a bounty for any dirt on administration members. You brought heat to our entire business. And now, can I really believe what I read, that you have turned your back on me?
I never asked you for money for my legal defense fund. Not that I wouldn't and couldn't use it. I welcome anyone to help support the case. At the suggestion of Jimmy Flynt, I wrote you a letter asking if you would give me 4 months of single page advertising somewhere among your own 45 pages of phone sex ads to advertise my mail order to try to raise money myself for my defense. I wrote to you saying that I felt uncomfortable and that the chance to do business through your magazine would be a big help. I just wished you would have given your response to me yourself, all these quotes attached to you, rather than reading something I can't believe is your opinion. But that is your right to free speech, isn't it Larry? Still, I can't believe you feel this way.
In the end Larry, I feel extremely confident that I can defend my product in court and that I will win. It is disheartening if it's true that you apparently aren't there to support my right in this fight to free speech and expression. If what they say you said, and this is how you feel, you are helping to convict me, by inferring that my product and I am out of the norm of our industry.
If this is all really you, I wonder how you can forget where you came from, the battles you fought and one and lost and still call yourself a freedom fighter. I can't imagine you turning your back on the principles and beliefs that made you the man who took a bullet for what he believes in and now have been reduced to being an armchair quarterback for the opposing team?
Larry, despite thinking that I brought the heat down on the industry, believe me this is indeed a battle that is larger than just one man or one company. This is a battle for the future of the entire adult entertainment business. But, just as you stood up by yourself and were willing to fight until the bitter end for what you believed in, I too am willing to stand on my own and fight this battle. I am appreciative of those in the industry who have come to my defense either by donating money or simply making sure that their shelves were stocked with Extreme product and vow that I will do all I can to make sure that when this is all said and done, we all have more protection under those vague obscenity laws
[img:746f6a2be5]http://www.avn.com/imagearchive/08/03/6 ... k_lead.jpg[/img:746f6a2be5]
Rob Black's Open Letter to Larry Flynt
By: Robert Zicari
04-12-2004
CHATSWORTH, Calif. - [Ed. note: This is an unedited open letter to Larry Flynt in response to comments Flynt made in a recent interview with AVN.com. That interview was in Flynt's response to comments Zicari made to Reason magazine. Zicari's opinions are his own and are not endorsed by AVN.com ]
As I followed Larry Flynt's career and watched him fight for First Amendment rights, going so far as to take a bullet for what he believed in, now, 30 years later, it seems, based on his recent quotes in Reason Magazine, Larry shoots that same bullet through my heart and he turns his back on fight that he gave up so much for.
If certain people in the adult industry want to speak out against me, I can accept it. They never built their careers on challenging the establishment or pushing the envelope. So, they don't know about, nor can they be put in my situation. But I say to Larry, you should be standing and fighting with me instead of against me. It seems by what I read lately, that you are now part of a somewhat growing group in the business I can only categorize as right wing pornographers. Can this be true?
If this is true and ironic as it may be seem for others in the business to speak out about what the definition of bad taste and/or obscenity may be, I can only call Flynt's membership in this group to be hypocritical, dangerous and dangerously close to that of the Bush administration and current justice department.
Larry, in your response on AVN.com to the Reason magazine article, you point out that in 1974, it all started for Hustler magazine by pushing the envelope on what you were publishing. Now this kind of material can be viewed around the clock on cable and satellite TV. So, are you justifying your actions by saying that because popular culture is accepting of what you create but was once considered obscene? Perhaps 30 years from now, my product that is currently being prosecuted will be deemed appropriate adult entertainment. Larry, if this is really how you feel, you are now exactly what you fought against for years.
What I am under indictment for tests the limits of the current administration position of obscenity, much the same as you did Larry, before I was born.
In 1974, showing a close up of a woman's open vagina was undeniably extreme. You brought to the masses crude and extreme pictures of naked women. It was a magazine with a controversial and some said dangerous edge and I proudly say, what you achieved was revolutionary and still remains a defining moment for freedom of speech and expression. It changed the world of print pornography forever.
Hell, Hefner wanted no part of your world. You were shot, shunned and considered a degenerate, who was a menace to America's self-inflicted morality. When you published nude photos of Jackie Onassis, our memory of Jackie Kennedy was no longer the prettiest wife of a President, ever, holding pieces of John F. Kennedy's bullet ridden head in her hands"you took her from sainthood, victim and martyr to a level of celebrity exploitation that has somehow set the standard that all other tabloid publications follow.
Back when pornography was Playboy and Deep Throat, you came along with spread legs, pink and Beaver of the Month! You were as reviled by some as I am now. The best part of how other adult company owners and producers are responding to my movies is to call them disgusting, revolting and outside of the norm of their own product, which frankly I know most have not seen"and haven't seen their own adult movies.
Of the three movies I am being prosecuted on in Western Pennsylvania, Reason magazine called Cocktails 2 the porn version of the TV show, "Fear Factor."
One of my other titles under indictment, Forced Entry has less gore and reality than Jason vs. Freddy or Gangs of New York
Extreme Teen 24 is not much more extreme than any of Hustler's Barely Legal series of videos. I welcome any director, producer, or company owner in porn to watch any of these three movies and then engage in a discussion with me on what I did that brought the heat down on the industry. Maybe they should take the time to watch their own product first, so they are aware of what they speak.
What I read on AVN.com about my interview in Reason quoted you as saying, "We've got a guy who's bringing a lot of heat on the adult industry." The issue of federal porn prosecutions was nothing I created nor was it anything I contributed to. The only thing I created was myself as target. The article in Reason clearly states pornography prosecution will continue to be an issue for any Republican administration. When Clinton took office, for eight years our business continued to grow by billions of dollars. Had the tragedy of 9/11 not occurred, the Bush administration would have come after our business much quicker than they have now.
But now, last year, as it was time to start looking toward a reelection campaign, the Christian right groups started asking Bush and Ashcroft where the delivery on their pre-election promises were. In 2001, when Bush and Ashcroft vowed to take on the industry, porn was no longer under the radar, you were no longer under the radar, but I still was. It was not until the Frontline piece on PBS in 2002 that, even according to the indictment, the federal government was aware of who I was in their eyes. Do you think that Bush's letter of intent or Ashcroft's similar promises were made based on Extreme Associates? Ask Howard Stern.
Larry, your remark about standing in court and believing that what I produce is garbage? Did you really mean this or even say it? Does it even have to be argued that one man's garbage is another man's art and that without a doubt, each of the movies I am indicted for carry either artistic merit or social commentary? For heaven's sake Larry, you made your fortune showing wide open pussy shots and having plastered the pages of your magazine with secretly taken naked photos of our most beloved First Lady, not to mention Jerry Falwell's treatment or the split beaver (Yes, younger porn fans, an actual split beaver as a "joke.")
None of this may seem as strong as a fictional rape scene performed by consenting adults in Forced Entry, a movie based on the "Nightstalker" a.k.a. Richard Ramirez murders, but to American society in the early ‘70s, your publication was extreme, bold, shocking, that many considered it to contain no redeeming social value, commentary or artistic merit.
And since my admittedly, cheaply produced and executed porno made as a cultish bit of carnality, is declared objectionable to you and people like the Bush Administration because it is presented as a drama and not as a comedy.
Now, do you consider rape a taboo subject for an X-rated drama or is it okay as long as we laugh about it? How else can you explain your new release Tobey Byron's Backcourt Violation? So, let me get this straight. It is acceptable to parody a court case where a young woman is claiming that she was anally raped but not to make a movie pointing out that rape and murder is wrong and a sociopath, rapist and murderer has justice served on him in the end. Of course, Larry you haven't actually seen Forced Entry, I assume so I don't expect you to understand how different our movies are.
Over the years, Hustler magazine became progressively more sexually extreme. Why? Because pornography sells"pure and simple. You also seem to question whether or not my movies matched the responsibility of my first amendment protection. So, in the ‘70s some said the same of Hustler, and Hefner and the government pointed the finger at you, saying what you did was wrong and irresponsible, you fought and argued that your (considered extreme at the time) magazine did was protected by your rights under the First Amendment.
You apparently go on to say in this article that our business is doing very well because companies follow guidelines on what to produce and where to ship movies and "the industry is (has) businessmen running it, not people that wanted to see how kinky or weird they could get." Larry, let me remind you proudly state that your first sexual experience was with a chicken. But I digress.
In and industry that has gone from 600 million dollars of annual business to an 11 Billion per year fiscal juggernaut, you seem to be misguided. What catalyzed the growth was the combination of pop culture and technology. In the 1970s there was no VCR, no DVD Player, no Internet, satellite or cable TV or hotels that play porn in your room around the clock. So what defines community standards when people enjoy adult entertainment behind closed doors, in the privacy or their home, hotel room and often their bed?
If I recall, if you were not able to purchase a copy of Hustler in a certain town, you would send one of your people into the store, defy the police to come and arrest the person selling it, and then have them go to jail. All of that to fight for the right for someone in that town to be able to buy the magazine that you felt was their god given First Amendment right to purchase.
Your life story was out there for us all to see on the big screen, but it seems that now Larry the Freedom Fighter is dead and Larry the Business Man is alive and apparently very well. Your companies are now being run by bean counters, just like mainstream Hollywood,
And then, from what I read, you go on to say you can count on one hand the adult directors "bent on doing, you know, things that are real demeaning toward women." Maybe you don't look far beyond the walls of Hustler, VCA, and Vivid (the porn companies your currently own and/or distribute). My question has to be "What do you consider demeaning?" Most porn companies these days are extreme. And, if you think that Ashcroft finds what I put on video to be demeaning to women, but what you put on video to be "acceptable," then, if that is indeed the way you see things, you are out of touch. Yes, I spoke the loudest, but even so, you and some of my contemporaries don't have the right to say that what I do is demeaning to women claiming your companies are all about class and respect.
How degraded does Kobe Bryant's accuser when she sees her life exploited in a movie released by Larry Flynt? And how did women in general feel when you put a naked woman upside down in a meat grinder on the cover of Hustler?
Perhaps the most disheartening part of what appears to be your recent right wing conservative porn agenda is that you say I brought it on myself, I created my own indictment. Larry, I take full responsibility for a true crime based rape movie that I made. I also took the responsible stance not to sell the movie to any distributors and only make it available direct through Extreme Associates, on our website, www.extremeassociates.com.
When PBS called, me telling me they wanted to do a story on the business asking me to provide them with an ultra extreme scene, I delivered. They asked if I wanted to be the test case for obscenity prosecutions. I told them I didn't necessarily want to be, but that I would accept the position if they forced it on me. Yes, I believe that in 2004 that I should be able to make a movie that combines drama, horror, violence, and sex. I believe I should be able to make a movie about a real serial killer. In this day and age where you can buy Charles Manson T-shirts and Son Of Sam dolls, and multi-platinum rock bands like Guns-N-Roses record a a song written by Charles Manson and movies like Kill Bill and The Passion of Christ considered by some the most gratuitously violent movies of all time, I feel that I have the right to create and adult movie about rape and serial killers who ultimately, pay a price for their crimes.
Just like mainstream Hollywood, The Other Holllywood pays taxes. When Hollywood makes an extreme movie, the film gets an NC-17 rating. If I make an extreme adult movie, the government wants to put me in jail. Mel Gibson, Quentin Tarrantino and the rest are considered true talents while my wife and I are looking at a potential lifetime in jail.
Larry, do you really believe I invited this on myself and deserve what I get? So, when I went to federal court should I have worn our beloved American flag as a diaper as you chose to do? Should I bark like a dog at the reporters as you did? When the judge told me I could not leave Los Angeles without permission should I have chartered a plane and flown to Yankee stadium for opening day, and when a judge wants evidence from me, should I throw oranges at him? If fined, should I have half-naked girls dump thousands of dollar bills in the courtroom? If the judge wants me to do something I don't feel like doing, should I wait for the federal marshals to come and make sure all of the networks have their news cameras in place before I force the marshals to come in and get me? You claimed you were making a statement about your Constitutional rights.
If I chose to do any of those behaviors, some people in our industry would consider me insane and I probably would never be able to follow in your footsteps receiving free speech awards. You taunted the former Republican administrations with every move you made. You even offered a bounty for any dirt on administration members. You brought heat to our entire business. And now, can I really believe what I read, that you have turned your back on me?
I never asked you for money for my legal defense fund. Not that I wouldn't and couldn't use it. I welcome anyone to help support the case. At the suggestion of Jimmy Flynt, I wrote you a letter asking if you would give me 4 months of single page advertising somewhere among your own 45 pages of phone sex ads to advertise my mail order to try to raise money myself for my defense. I wrote to you saying that I felt uncomfortable and that the chance to do business through your magazine would be a big help. I just wished you would have given your response to me yourself, all these quotes attached to you, rather than reading something I can't believe is your opinion. But that is your right to free speech, isn't it Larry? Still, I can't believe you feel this way.
In the end Larry, I feel extremely confident that I can defend my product in court and that I will win. It is disheartening if it's true that you apparently aren't there to support my right in this fight to free speech and expression. If what they say you said, and this is how you feel, you are helping to convict me, by inferring that my product and I am out of the norm of our industry.
If this is all really you, I wonder how you can forget where you came from, the battles you fought and one and lost and still call yourself a freedom fighter. I can't imagine you turning your back on the principles and beliefs that made you the man who took a bullet for what he believes in and now have been reduced to being an armchair quarterback for the opposing team?
Larry, despite thinking that I brought the heat down on the industry, believe me this is indeed a battle that is larger than just one man or one company. This is a battle for the future of the entire adult entertainment business. But, just as you stood up by yourself and were willing to fight until the bitter end for what you believed in, I too am willing to stand on my own and fight this battle. I am appreciative of those in the industry who have come to my defense either by donating money or simply making sure that their shelves were stocked with Extreme product and vow that I will do all I can to make sure that when this is all said and done, we all have more protection under those vague obscenity laws