[f5fstop]

There are limits to free speech. You can't threaten someone's life, you can't yell fire in a theater, and you face civil charges for defamation of character. I don't believe Larry Flint was defaming anyone, he was publishing photos of willing people, and the religious right did not like it.
However, SCOTUS ruled in Roth v. United States (in 1957) that 'obscene' material has no protection under the First Amendment. According to the Court, the guarantees of the freedom of expression were never meant to be absolute protection for every possible utterance of any sort - therefore, some standards are reasonable to set.

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the court ruled, "Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice" -- knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth -- is alleged and proved."

We will probably never know what finally happens in this case.