But Will $1 Million Ease the Shame?

Brian Doherty | June 5, 2007

Publishing gadfly Larry Flynt of Hustler offers up a cool million for documented evidence of prominent public officials having illicit sex, in an ad in Sunday's Washington Post. Details from Reuters .

Comments

|6.5.07 @ 12:15PM|#

What is this, I Love the 90s?

|6.5.07 @ 12:32PM|#

If Flynt/ Hustler pays the one million for the evidence, can they publish it (including photos) with impunity? Legal community?

|6.5.07 @ 12:32PM|#

Again? Or is it still? The only way this gets interesting, is if a congressman tries to claim it himself.

Most likely scenario: The film shows the back of a woman's head moving repeatedly towards and away from the camera. The congressman claims it's his wife going down on him in [insert southern redneck state] where it's still technically illegal. He sues Flynt for the money, and the cable news coverage inspires new reality TV shows.

squarooticus|6.5.07 @ 12:36PM|#

No matter the consequences, they won't publish late: Flynt don't hesistate.

ed|6.5.07 @ 12:36PM|#

I'd yawn but I'm afraid to open my mouth.

|6.5.07 @ 1:14PM|#

If Flynt/ Hustler pays the one million for the evidence, can they publish it (including photos) with impunity? Legal community?

I don't think whether he paid for the info or not makes any difference.

The chances of someone getting a prior restraint on publication of something like this are zero.

The chances of anyone collecting on a libel case are not zero, but not much higher, depending of course on what is published and how good the backup is.

|6.5.07 @ 10:16PM|#

So Larry Flynt just set up a $1M retirement fund for any politician who was planning to retire anyway and who chooses to out himself on some minor indiscretion, on the theory that you really can't lower your prestige much below "politician"? Did Flynt think this one through?