Q&A
Larry Flynt's War

Journalists sued the government over press access during the gulf war, and they've done so this time around, too. Last time it was The Nation, the liberal journal of opinion -- on behalf of a number of publications and highbrow writers such as E.L. Doctorow and William Styron -- charging that the military unfairly and unconstitutionally barred reporters from the battlefields. By the time the judge could rule, however, the war was over and the case was moot.

Now, a decade later, another conflict has exploded and another magazine has dragged the government into court. This time it is the porn publisher Larry Flynt who filed suit against Donald Rumsfeld and the Department of Defense in November for the right of Hustler correspondents to accompany American troops in Afghanistan.

Flynt is no stranger to seemingly insurmountable legal battles, however. He has weathered obscenity trials and other challenges to government censorship. He filed suit against the government in 1983 for prohibiting reporters from covering the initial stages of the United States-led invasion of Grenada. Flynt lost that suit, a case that unfortunately foreshadowed media coverage of this new war. CJR assistant editor Joshua Lipton interviewed him.
 
Why are you suing the government and what do you hope to accomplish?
First of all, a long tradition exists in this country, dating to the Civil War, of journalists being allowed to accompany troops on the battlefield. That continued through World War I, the Second World War, Korea, and Vietnam. Think how many lives possibly were saved by the press's reporting of the war in Vietnam. But after Vietnam, presidents and high-ranking officials began treating the press as adversaries. Reagan invaded Grenada. President Bush senior invaded Panama and then ran the gulf war. In each case there were severe restrictions on the press. Afghanistan is the straw that broke the camel's back. The American people have a right to know how the military is conducting the war. The press has an obligation to report it. It's an important First Amendment issue. This lawsuit should have been filed by the mainstream press, not me. But I think they're too worried about who is going to get the next interview with George and Laura Bush.

But there are many reporters on the ground in Afghanistan.
Yes, but hardly any of them are permitted to be with American troops. The Pentagon can't use the argument that eight journalists have already died, so it's too dangerous. Roosevelt could have made that argument in World War II, but journalists were allowed to cover the war, and it was dangerous. If reporters want to risk their lives, put themselves in harm's way, that's their business, not Donald Rumsfeld's. I think the reason the Defense Department doesn't want reporters with our troops is that if they screw up, they want to cover it up. They can't cover it up if the press is there.
 
Where in the Constitution does it say that the military must assist reporters?
It does not say that. But free speech is inherent in our First Amendment, and the exercise of this free speech is paramount. The military owes its cooperation. If it's not giving its cooperation, then it's interfering with the exercise of free speech.
 
How can we expect the military to act effectively under intense media scrutiny?
We make an important concession in the suit. All reporting would be submitted to a ground commander for possible censorship, as regards issues of national security and the welfare of the troops. That's an argument they'll have an extremely difficult time dealing with. We're not saying that we want carte blanche. Suppose a TV cameraman shoots fifteen minutes of film but only one minute of that film is approved by the field commander for release. At least then you have fourteen minutes that's preserved for posterity. And that's what this issue is about.
 
Are you disappointed that mainstream media are not parties to your suit?
When I took my case to the Supreme Court involving the Reverend Jerry Falwell in 1988 -- which I won in a unanimous decision -- not a single member of the mainstream media would join me in that case. But still they're reaping the benefits because now parody is protected speech. Jay Leno and David Letterman and Saturday Night Live have monologues and skits that are much more on the biting edge than they were before. That's because I won that suit.