The city's Department of Public Works issued an order for the removal of 18 billboards featuring pictures from Hustler magazine and pornographic websites run by Larry Flynt. One of the images featured a woman masturbating with a banana while sitting in front of a computer monitor. Another showed four women performing oral sex on each other. Other ads depicted couples having sex and another had three men engaged in an act of bestiality.
Flynt claimed that he was being censored by the city and sued San Francisco for $10 million. He argued that the advertisements were protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. The case eventually went to trial before a federal judge who ruled against Flynt, saying that the city could regulate commercial speech if it did so without discriminating against any particular viewpoint or speaker. The judge also noted that the city has the power to protect its citizens from "material that is offensive or repugnant."
San Francisco officials said they would continue to enforce their anti-obscenity laws. In response to the ruling, the city attorney's office announced plans to draft new regulations for the display of public advertising that would consider factors such as location and context when determining what constitutes obscene material.
The issue sparked a debate over free speech versus community standards. Some saw Flynt's images as harmful to children and others defended them as artistic expressions that should be protected.
After several months of legal wrangling, all but two billboards featuring explicit content were removed. A jury later awarded Flynt $4.5 million in damages but the verdict was thrown out on appeal.
Despite the controversy, Hustler continued to run ads in San Francisco until 2008 when Flynt agreed to voluntarily remove them after facing further scrutiny over another set of billboards showing graphic images.
Overall, this event highlighted the tension between the right to free expression and the need to maintain community standards. It also raised questions about how far cities can go in regulating public displays without violating civil liberties.