Sunday, July 13, 2003

Beating a Dead Horse
No, I am not talking about an equestrian snuff film. I am referring to my endless attack on the duplicitous Peter Bronson. His latest column starts off with an ironic twist I think was lost somewhere in Peter's gray hair. The irony begins squarely in the title: "Flynts' outrage just part of their fetish for ink." For those not familiar with newspaper terminology, should understand that "ink" is analogous to "coverage," more commonly used in the Broadcast media. Bronson's position is that the Flynts are just looking for more media attention, and Peter is providing that attention. If Pete wants the Flynts to just go away there is one simple solution, don't feed the beast!

In his column, Peter also displays elements of what can only be described logically as a physiological reaction to viewing the covers of porn videos/DVDs. I guess Peter has been taking Harry Potter to heart and has devolved the magical ability to know that a film is "explicit" and therefore violates the 1999 plea agreement without actually seeing the film. I guess not judging a book, or a video, by its cover is not an axiom popular in the Bronson household.

The most disingenuous comment from Bronson must be this:
When the store was busted by the sheriff last month for selling X-rated videos, Jimmy Flynt said, "I think this is a personal vendetta."

It may indeed be a personal vendetta - by the Flynts.
Who is Bronson trying to fool? It is plain and obvious that Hamilton County Sheriff Simon Leis is out to get the Flynts. There are thousands of other crimes with real victims in this city that go unsolved, yet Leis is out to get Flynt for selling a little porn. Peter seems to want to just gloss over the nearly 30-year crusade by the likes of Keating, Leis, and now Phil Burress to establish a theocracy here in Cincinnati.

Finally, Bronson is just being ignorant with this comment:
Here's the naked truth: The Flynts and their lawyers copped a plea bargain and paid $10,000 in fines in 1999 because they were about to get hammered for stinking up downtown like a sauerkraut factory in a hotel lobby.
Peter's condiment fetish aside, the real reason the Flynts took the plea was financial. Larry Flynt stated on WLW's Mike McConnell show recently the reason for the plea deal. A California law prohibits ownership of a gaming license by anyone with a felony. Flynt was facing a felony. He plead down and made the deal to keep a cash cow business going. Larry Flynt also has a good defense now; he does not own the store where the allegedly "explicit" videos were sold. Larry has standing to claim that he did not violate the 1999 agreement and it should still be binding for him. Jimmy Flynt will be the person fighting the new charges. His defense will likely be that the agreement was unconstitutional, on equal enforcement of the law grounds. The same type or even the same videos are sold through other outlets in the county. The basis for limiting Jimmy Flynts ability to practice a business, while allowing others to practice the same type business is a very valid and worthwhile legal fight.

As a footnote, I have to wonder if it is an editorial policy of the Enquirer's old guard to mount a campaign disparaging the entire Flynt family. Bronson has now brought Jimmy Flynt's son Dustin into the fold by quoting him in his column. Dustin is involved in the operation of the Hustler store downtown and is fair game to be quoted, but why hasn't the Enquirer looked at the Flynt family from a different perspective, namely from the Flynt perspective? Dustin Flynt lives in town and is a member of the community with what I would surmise is a unique and an interesting perspective on the situation. If Bronson can do a quasi-edifying column on Nate Livingston, a known hate monger, why is there not a least a balanced report on someone from the Flynt camp? It would not be a conservative bias now would it? Maybe it is a little personal prejudice too.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't be an idiot or your post will be deleted.