Larry Flynt was a mess.
Honestly, that’s the only way to start this. Before he was a First Amendment martyr or a Woody Harrelson character, he was just a guy running gritty strip clubs in Ohio who realized that printing a newsletter with pictures of the dancers would sell more beer. That newsletter became Hustler, a magazine so crude it made Playboy look like a Sunday school pamphlet.
But then something weird happened. This "smut peddler" from Kentucky ended up in the Supreme Court, winning a case that basically keeps every late-night comedian and political cartoonist in business today.
If you’ve seen the 1996 movie The People vs. Larry Flynt, you know the broad strokes. You saw the American flag diaper, the courtroom outbursts, and the tragic, drug-fueled spiral of his wife, Althea. But Hollywood loves a hero arc, and the real story is a lot more jagged than what Milos Forman put on screen.
✨ Don't miss: Power Book II: Ghost Funding Credits Explained: What Most People Get Wrong
The Courtroom Circus and the Real Alan Isaacman
The movie makes it look like Larry was a strategic genius of free speech. In reality, he was often a nightmare for his legal team. Alan Isaacman—played by a young, incredibly earnest Edward Norton—wasn't just a sidekick; he was a human shield.
Flynt didn't just "protest" in court. He threw oranges at judges. He wore a Purple Heart he hadn't earned. He screamed obscenities until he was gagged with duct tape.
One thing the film brushes over is that Flynt was eventually diagnosed with bipolar disorder. His attorney, the real Isaacman, actually begged the screenwriters to include more about Larry’s manic episodes to explain why he was acting so insane. The writers mostly passed. They wanted the "rebel" persona to feel like a choice, not a chemical imbalance.
It’s a classic case of the movie being about a symbol while the real life was about a man who was often in immense physical and mental pain.
That Infamous Parody: Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
The turning point of Flynt's life—and the climax of The People vs. Larry Flynt—is the legal war with Reverend Jerry Falwell.
It started with a fake Campari ad.
👉 See also: Solo Leveling Season 2 Episode 10: Is This Where the Arise Hype Finally Peaks?
If you aren't familiar with 80s booze marketing, Campari had these "First Time" ads where celebrities talked about the first time they tried the liqueur. It was full of double entendres. Flynt’s team ran a parody featuring Falwell claiming his "first time" was an incestuous romp with his mother in an outhouse.
Falwell sued for libel and "intentional infliction of emotional distress."
The libel part failed because, let's be real, nobody actually believed Jerry Falwell was doing that in an outhouse. But the lower courts awarded Falwell $200,000 for the emotional distress. That was the scary part for the press. If you could sue someone just because they "hurt your feelings" with a joke, satire would be dead.
What the Movie Got Right (and Very Wrong)
Let's talk about Althea. Courtney Love’s performance as Althea Leasure is legendary, mostly because she wasn't really "acting" as much as she was channeling her own chaotic energy at the time.
The movie shows their love as this beautiful, "us against the world" romance. It was... darker than that. The real Althea did struggle with AIDS and drug addiction, and she did drown in a bathtub in 1987. But the film glosses over the absolute grit of their daily life. Flynt was paralyzed from the waist down after an assassination attempt by white supremacist Joseph Paul Franklin in 1978. He was in constant, agonizing pain.
- The Shooting: In the movie, it's a dramatic moment of political martyrdom. In real life, Franklin shot Flynt because Hustler ran a photo spread featuring an interracial couple. It wasn't about "smut"—it was about hate.
- The Conversion: There’s a weird middle section where Larry becomes a "born-again Christian" thanks to Ruth Carter Stapleton (Jimmy Carter’s sister). The movie makes it look like a brief whim. In reality, it was a massive, psychedelic-style shift that almost tanked the magazine before he swung back the other way.
Why Does This Still Matter in 2026?
You might think a 30-year-old movie about a 40-year-old court case is just "history." It’s not.
Every time you see a meme mocking a politician or a brutal parody on SNL, you’re seeing the ghost of Larry Flynt. The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in 1988 established that public figures have to have thick skin.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist—who wasn't exactly a fan of porn—wrote the opinion. He argued that even if speech is "outrageous," we can't let a jury decide what's "too mean." Because once you start doing that, the government gets to decide what's "appropriate."
That's the paradox of Flynt. You don't have to like him. You can find Hustler disgusting. Most people did. But to protect the speech we like, we have to protect the speech we hate.
Insights for the Modern Reader
If you're looking to dive deeper into this era of legal history or just want to see a great film, keep these things in mind:
- Watch the movie for the performances, not the biography. Harrelson and Love are at their peak, but take the timeline with a grain of salt.
- Read the actual Supreme Court opinion. It’s surprisingly readable and explains exactly why "emotional distress" is a dangerous legal standard for the press.
- Recognize the nuance. Flynt wasn't a saint. He was a provocateur who happened to have the money and the stubbornness to fight the battles that more "respectable" publishers were too scared to touch.
The legacy of The People vs. Larry Flynt isn't about the man himself—it's about the "breathing space" the law gives us to be offensive, loud, and free.
To really understand how the First Amendment works in practice, you have to look at the people who pushed it to the breaking point. Larry Flynt didn't just push it; he tried to snap it in half. And because he failed to break it, the law came out stronger on the other side.
🔗 Read more: TV Shows With Mary Jo Deschanel: The Roles You Might Have Missed
If you want to explore the legal documents, the Library of Congress has some incredible courtroom illustrations and summaries of the Hustler v. Falwell proceedings that show just how tense those rooms really were.