Larry Flynt

Archive for October, 2013

FROM THE TIMES OF ISRAEL: Larry Flynt doesn’t want man who shot him executed

Monday, October 21st, 2013

The serial murderer shooter says his hatred of blacks and Jews caused his killing spree; one victim shot outside a synagogue

Larry_Flynt_Wheelchair-e1382340480936
Larry Flynt in 2009. (photo credit: Glenn Francis of
www.PacificProDigital.com, CC-SA)

LOS ANGELES — Porn publisher Larry Flynt says he doesn’t want to see the serial killer whose gunshots left him paralyzed 35 years ago put to death for his crimes.

In an essay published Thursday in The Hollywood Reporter, Flynt says that while he would love to take pliers and a pair of wire cutters to torture Joseph Paul Franklin, he does not believe in the death penalty.

Franklin has been in prison since 1980 for a string of shootings that left five people dead and others wounded. He is scheduled to be executed Nov. 20 in Missouri.

(For full article, click here.)

THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD: Larry Flynt vs capital punishment

Monday, October 21st, 2013

Pornographer, civil liberties campaigner opposes death penalty for man who shot him nearly 35 years ago.

a99d6e33528fd1ed6300d2bdbed3594af413af0d_620x310

Larry Flynt says his feelings about capital punishment
began to crystallise after he was shot.

By the brutal norms of American capital punishment, few recipients of a lethal injection will trouble consciences less deeply than Joseph Paul Franklin.

In a spree of racially motivated violence across the US in the late 1970s, the Ku Klux Klan-affiliated gunman murdered as many as 20 people on a mission to “cleanse the world” of those he considered to be of inferior status.

But if Franklin is strapped down to receive the fatal shot of drugs on November 20, in conformity with the Missouri Department of Corrections’ schedule, at least one of his surviving targets won’t be raising a glass in celebration.

“If it was a deterrent, I’d support the death penalty, but it’s not,” said Larry Flynt, the notorious pornographer and civil liberties campaigner who was paralysed by a bullet from Franklin’s hunting rifle.

(To read full article, click here.)


James Taranto

Monday, October 21st, 2013

We could hurl our usual shit-related epithets at The Wall Street Journal ’s hack columnist, but that would be letting him off too easy. Instead, we’ll take a shot at doing what James Taranto says Gabrielle Giffords can’t: write “900 publishable words.”

Giffords, an ex-congresswoman from Arizona, was shot in the head by a rampage shooter in 2011 and miraculously survived. She went on to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of sensible gun laws. After the Senate failed to pass the weakest guncontrol imaginable—expanded background checks—she shamed them in a New York Times op-ed.

Taranto’s response: “So we are supposed to believe that somehow in less than five hours a woman who has severe impairments of her motor and speech functions was able to produce 900 publishable words.” Excuse us, James, but wouldn’t it have been more straightforward to just spit in her face? Or were you worried Gabby’s “impairments” wouldn’t keep her from kicking you in the balls?

Taranto, by the way, offered zero research to back up his claim. But that didn’t matter because Giffords had hit the trifecta in Taranto’s hate stakes: She’s a Democrat, she’s a woman and, being a victim of gun violence, she makes assault weapons in the hands of lunatics look like a bad thing.

Taranto is the kind of troll who measures his success by how much angry feedback he generates. For years he harped away at things like affirmative action (notoriously implying that a rooster could get into college), hate-crime hoaxes (college kids exercising “free speech” with racist threats) and, of course, Obama. Taranto couldn’t hate the Presi dent more if he turned out to be Oprah in disguise.

Taranto’s nonstop bloviating year after year helped drag the GOP far enough to the right to hook it up with the Tea Party. His program boils down to a few simplistic talking points: Federal government is bad, private companies do no wrong, and if white men didn’t need something before, nobody needs it now. It’s an ideological bedpan that he can crap his entire agenda into.

But even government-bashing and racebaiting get boring, so Taranto tapped into another bottomless reservoir of venom: sexism.

In 2012, after the Aurora rampage shooting— in which three guys died protecting their girlfriends from gunfire—Taranto tweeted: “I hope the girls whose boyfriends died to save them were worthy of the sacrifice.”

In midst of the blog barrage that followed, Taranto claimed his comment was an “errant tweet.” Bullshit. He meant exactly what people thought he meant: Women’s lives are secondary to men’s. His mea culpa ended up reinforcing his original comment, since it recast the boyfriends as vigilant daddy figures: From now on, girls, you’d better focus on making the menfolk proud of you!

Taranto’s Giffords and Aurora comments brought him waves of the contempt he so craves, but they turned out to be just warmups for his next resounding brainfart, the “War on Men.” Take a second to guess what that is. Forced castration? Bill O’Reilly’s dress-up fantasy? Wrong. It’s the attempt to protect women in the military from sexual assault. What else?

Taranto’s inner Neanderthal was prodded into combat in June 2013, when Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) blocked the nomination of General Susan Helms to be vice commander of the Air Force Space Command. Helms had granted clemency to an officer who was convicted of aggravated sexual assault.

Good call, McCaskill. Outrage over rape and sexual assault in the military are at a high. Women are now fighting side by side with men. Why march backwards?

Taranto must have been praising the asshole gods. Finally, this was his Fort Sumter! He shot his whole load in the opening paragraph of his next op-ed: “Lt. Gen. Susan Helms is a pioneering woman who finds her career stalled because of a war on men—a political campaign against sexual assault in the military that shows signs of becoming an effort to criminalize male sexuality.”

In response, Senator McCaskill soberly noted Taranto’s “bizarre and deeply out-of-touch understanding of sexual assault.” The reason Taranto’s views look that way to sane people is because they arise out of a deepfestering chauvinism. Yes, you read that right. HUSTLER Magazine just called The Wall Street Journal ’s James Taranto a sexist pig! Sweet irony. We print spread vaginas for men to whack it to. We churn out movies like Monster Dicks in Young Chicks. How can it be that we are more enlightened about sexual equality than he is?

James, read carefully: You may be surprised to learn that male sexuality doesn’t always include assault. As for feminism, it’s not about claiming that women and men are the same— as you’ve accused the “leftist ideologues” of preaching—but that they are entitled to the same rights and protections. Men still swing dicks, and women still have vaginas. (We’ve provided backup for that on most of the pages in this magazine.) As for your tactic of “reframing the debate,” you’re not fooling us. It’s just the old game of derailing legitimate discourse into emotionally charged tripe. But please, go ahead and lump us in with the “lynch mob” of your critics. It’s good company.

We’ve already wasted enough words on Taranto. Let’s save a few for his boss, WSJ ’s editorial page editor, Paul Gigot: Hey, Paul, Taranto better have a photo of you doing something disgusting with your Pulitzer Prize that keeps you from firing him. But even that excuse wouldn’t be good enough. Thanks to you and Rupert Murdoch, The Wall Street Journal has gone from the most-carried, least-read newspaper in America to something we’d be embarrassed to wipe our asses with. What’s the word we’re looking for to describe your editorial standards? Oh, yeah. Unpublishable.


FROM THE GUARDIAN: Larry Flynt urges clemency for Joseph Paul Franklin, the killer who shot him

Saturday, October 19th, 2013

Pornographer and civil liberties advocate calls for neo-Nazi to be spared, saying death penalty is ‘not justice but vengeance’

Larry Flynt
Larry Flynt: ‘This nation is bent on executing people and it’s hard to get
people who feel that way to be rational.’ Photograph: Dan Tuffs/Getty Images

By the brutal norms of American capital punishment, few recipients of a lethal injection will trouble consciences less deeply than Joseph Paul Franklin.

In a spree of racially motivated violence across the US in the late 1970s, the Ku Klux Klan-affiliated gunman murdered as many as 20 people on a mission to “cleanse the world” of those he considered to be of inferior status.

But if Franklin is strapped down to receive the fatal shot of drugs on 20 November, in conformity with the Missouri Department of Corrections’ schedule, at least one of his surviving targets won’t be raising a glass in celebration.

“If it was a deterrent, I’d support the death penalty, but it’s not,” Larry Flynt, the notorious pornographer and civil liberties campaigner who was paralysed by a bullet from Franklin’s hunting rifle, told the Observer last week.

Flynt first expressed his views on the death penalty and the sentence of his attacker in the movie-industry trade journal Hollywood Reporter last week.

(To read full article, click here.)


FROM THE INDEPENDENT: Porn baron Larry Flynt says gunman who left him paralysed should be spared execution

Friday, October 18th, 2013

larry-flynt-getty

Joseph Paul Franklin’s capital punishment is scheduled for next month,
but Flynt says the sentence is motivated by ‘vengeance, not justice’

The US porn baron Larry Flynt has said he would love to torture the serial killer who left him paralysed, but that he should be spared from execution.

Joseph Paul Franklin has been in prison since 1980, and on death row for the last 15 years, after he was convicted of killing five people as part of a string of racially-motivated attacks. In 1978 he shot Flynt on the steps of a Georgia courthouse, seriously damaging his central nervous system and leaving him unable to move from the waist down.

Next month, Franklin faces death by lethal injection. In a guest column written for the Hollywood Reporter, Flynt said: “I have every reason to be overjoyed with this decision, but I am not.”

(For full article, click here.)


FROM SKY NEWS: Larry Flynt Against Death Penalty For His Shooter

Friday, October 18th, 2013

Larry Flynt says he wants Joseph Paul Franklin to suffer as he did but thinks life in prison is punishment enough.


15199793-522x293

The Hustler magazine publisher has been in a wheelchair since the shooting

Hustler magazine founder Larry Flynt has spoken out against the impending execution of the man who shot him.

The 71-year-old porn publisher, who was paralysed from the waist down in the 1978 attack and has been confined to a wheelchair ever since, said he wanted Joseph Paul Franklin to suffer but not die.

“I would love an hour in a room with him and a pair of wire-cutters and pliers, so I could inflict the same damage on him that he inflicted on me,” he wrote in a guest column for Hollywood Reporter.

“But, I do not want to kill him, nor do I want to see him die.”

(For full article, click here.)


FROM THE TIMES: Larry Flynt calls for gunman who paralysed him to be spared execution

Friday, October 18th, 2013

6231636_flynt_464886c

Larry Flynt, the US porn mogul, has made an impassioned plea to spare the life of the man who left him wheelchair bound.

Joseph Paul Franklin, a white supremacist, is due to be executed by lethal injection next month for the murder of five people.

He was sentenced to death in 1980 after a murderous hate campaign targeting black people, Jews and those like Mr Flynt, who he believed promoted interracial relations.

(For full article, click here.)


FROM INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES: Larry Flynt: Hustler Magazine Publisher Says The Man Who Shot And Paralyzed Him Shouldn’t Be Executed

Thursday, October 17th, 2013

rtr2zr39

Larry Flynt doesn’t want the man who shot and paralyzed him to be executed. REUTERS

Hustler publisher Larry Flynt doesn’t want the man who shot and permanently paralyzed him to be executed. Joseph Paul Franklin has been sentenced by the Missouri Supreme Court to death by lethal injection on Nov. 20, and Flynt has writes about it in a guest column for the Hollywood Reporter.

“I have every reason to be overjoyed with this decision, but I am not,” Flynt states. “I have had many years in this wheelchair to think about this very topic. As I see it, the sole motivating factor behind the death penalty is vengeance, not justice, and I firmly believe that a government that forbids killing among its citizens should not be in the business of killing people itself.”

Flynt was shot by Franklin on March 6, 1978, outside a Georgia courthouse as the Hustler publisher battled obscenity charges related to his magazine. The incident left Flynt permanently paralyzed from the waist down. He’s been in a wheelchair ever since.

(For full article, click here.)


FROM THE TELEGRAPH: Larry Flynt opposes death penalty for man who paralysed him and killed five others

Thursday, October 17th, 2013

Porn publisher Larry Flynt says he doesn’t want to see the serial killer whose gunshots left him paralysed 35 years ago put to death for his crimes.

Larry-Flynt_2333832b

The Hustler magazine publisher said he doesn’t
believe capital punishment is a deterrent to crime.

In an essay published in The Hollywood Reporter, Flynt says that while he would love to take pliers and a pair of wire cutters to torture Joseph Paul Franklin, he does not believe in the death penalty.

Franklin has been in prison since 1980 for a string of shootings that left five people dead and others wounded. He is scheduled to be executed Nov. 20 in Missouri.

“I have every reason to be overjoyed with that decision, but I am anything but,” writes Flynt, who has been paralyzed from the waist down since he was shot in 1978 on the steps of a Georgia courthouse. He was there to fight pornography charges.

(For full article, click here.)

 


Privacy R.I.P.

Monday, October 14th, 2013

BEWARE: LAWMAKERS ARE COOKING UP A BACKDOOR PLOY TO IMPLEMENT A NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM.

by Nat Hentoff

While the media and even Congress were outraged about the Obama Administration’s eavesdropping on the personal phone calls of Associated Press reporters and editors, I’m also outraged about We the People’s apathy. Most of us have become so conditioned to the government and corporations databasing our personal communications, I expect there will be little commotion about what could be in store for our privacy as revealed by Wired.com.

In “Biometric Database of All Adult Americans Hidden in Immigration Reform,” senior staff writer David Kravets foretells the ultimate demise of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of “unreasonable” government searches: “The immigration reform measure [being debated in the Senate] would create a national biometric database of virtually every adult in the U.S. in what privacy groups fear could be the first step to a ubiqui tous national identification system.”

Kravets adds: “Buried in the more than 800 pages of the bipartisan legislation is language mandating the creation of the innocuously named ‘photo tool,’ a massive federal data base administered by the Department of Homeland Security and containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID.”

Keep in mind all the “proofs of self” that are continually being added to the USA PATRIOT Act. Nearly every new doctor I go to now requires I bring a photo ID. Never had to when I was a kid.

Says ACLU Congressional lobbyist Chris Calabrese: “It could be the start of keeping a record of all things.”

Why not? Our Founders had no premonition of biometric and other forms of increasingly sophisticated technology. Once in power, all governments are insatiable in demanding more and more information about their subjects— from the New Deal to the FBI and CIA.

Kravets, who’s hip enough to use the chilling term “inevitable mission creep” in his article, notes: “For now, the legislation allows the database to be used solely for employment purposes. But historically such limitations don’t last. The Social Security card, for example, was created to track your government retirement benefits. Now you need it to purchase health insurance.”

And a lot of other things. To be paid for writing this column, I have to provide HUSTLER my Social Security number.

David Bier, an analyst for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, says the “photo tool” is “like a national ID system without the card.” And any of us anytime can be “a person of interest” without our knowing we’ve been targeted until we feel the hit.

How much do you want to bet that this “photo tool” will be ignored in the 2014 and 2016 elections? And who knows what will be in our grandchildren’s databases? Or that of anyone who has publicly commented on reading this column. So how many Americans—now and in coming generations—will identify themselves as members of a self-governing republic?

This is why I keep commenting on the growing number of public-school classrooms in which students are learning how to be the kind of Americans for whom the Bill of Rights was intended.

In her book No Citizen Left Behind, Meira Levinson of the Harvard Graduate School of Education writes: “We were able, in our classes, to use something students actually cared about to explore federalism, the rule of law, separation of powers, individual versus collective responsibility…and critical analysis of public rhetoric.”

Meanwhile, in my book Living the Bill of Rights, I quoted scholar John A. Howard’s essay “On Freedom”: “We have in the U.S. produced several generations of cultural orphans who have little knowledge and even less appreciation of their heritage of freedom, or the struggles and sacrifices which produced it. … We have inadvertently engaged in a kind of unilateral intellectual disarmament which could well prove more devastating to the cause of liberty than would be the destruction of our defense arsenals.”

That’s how Barack Obama was reelected and why his opponent Mitt Romney said that if he’d been in Congress, he would have voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. Jefferson and Madison warned that only an informed citizenry would make the revolution work. What’s going on in the schools where you are? Education is the key.


larry flynt's book