In 2003, Oklahoma's Attorney General was determined to enforce its obscenity laws against magazines containing explicit depictions of sex. After several months of investigation, he focused his attention on Larry Flint's publication, Hustler Magazine. He claimed that the magazine did not meet the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California, which established three factors for determining what is considered obscene material. These included whether the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; whether it appeals to prurient interests; and whether it depicts patently offensive sexual conduct in an unacceptable way. The first factor focuses on whether the material has any redeeming social value beyond simply titillating its readers, while the second examines whether it appeals primarily to the reader's desire for sexually arousing or gratifying images. Finally, the third factor looks at whether the work goes beyond accepted community standards of decency and morality. Based on these criteria, the Attorney General believed that Hustler violated the law.
The case centered around the cover of Hustler's March issue from that year, which featured a cartoon of former President Bill Clinton engaging in fellatio with Monica Lewinsky. In addition to this image, the magazine also contained other articles about sex and pornography, including a piece called "Dear Penthouse Forum," where readers could submit their own erotic stories. Flynt argued that the material was protected under free speech rights granted by the First Amendment, but Oklahoma authorities were determined to enforce their laws regardless. As a result, they charged 10 stores across the state with selling Hustler without a warning label stating that it may be obscene. The retailers were fined $25000 each for their offense, although most refused to pay the fine and went to court instead.
Flynt fought back against Oklahoma's charges by filing his own lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of their obscenity laws. He claimed that the laws were vague and overbroad, as they did not provide specific definitions of what constituted obscenity and allowed for subjective interpretations. In addition, he argued that the laws were too broad, potentially criminalizing any publication containing sexual content, even if it had redeeming social value. After a long legal battle, Flynt won the case, and Oklahoma's obscenity laws were declared unconstitutional. This decision set an important precedent for freedom of expression in America, allowing adults to access material that some might find offensive or inappropriate.
Overall, the Oklahoma Obscenity Lawsuit highlighted the tension between conservative state policies aimed at restricting adult content and personal freedoms to consume such material. While the case did not directly address pornography itself, it raised questions about how much power states have to regulate what people can read or view in private. It also demonstrated the power of the First Amendment in protecting free speech rights, even when they are controversial or disturbing.