KELLY GARRETT, a witness, after having first been duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

* * *

Q.  Did you attend any meeting of Hustler Magazine, at which the subject matter of that ad parody was discussed?

A.  Yes, sir.

* * *

Q.  Do you recall what was said about the ad parody at that conversation?

A.  Yes, sir, I do.

* * *

Q.  Now, what was involved in that discussion?

A.  Okay.  Well, the principal protagonist in the discussion was the clerk of counsel, David Kahn.  He had asked Mr. Flynt during that meeting to put in some sort of disclaimer pointing out that it was an ad parody.  A good deal of time, and I would say for sure it was over an hour -- possibly 2, maybe even 3, was spent arguing the point.

Q.  What was the position of Mr. Flynt or the others who were against that?

A.  Well, it was unanimous with the one exception of Mr. Kahn, that it was inappropriate to put any sort of disclaimer on it for reasons that -- it was so obviously a parody that to call it -- point it out as such would be superfluous, meaning it would be redundant --

THE COURT: Why would anybody object, though, to the extra baggage?

A.  The reason why we did, we objected -- and I was one of the principal objectors to this extra baggage -- was that it had a detrimental effect on the impact of the humor of the ad, as has been mentioned in previous testimony, I couldn't help but hear sitting back there.  When you point to a joke and call it a joke, it takes away from the joke.  And since everyone in the room liked this parody and thought it was funny, and successfully as a parody, and the spirit of the magazine at the time was very enthusiastic -- to do good stuff.  Mr. Flynt had just returned from an absence, -- the general opinion in the room was to not do anything that would take away from the impact of the parody.  That's why there was that sort of objection to the excess baggage.

* * *

Q.  Did anybody in the room voice the concern that a Hustler reader would take this ad parody as conveying truthful information about Jerry Falwell?

* * *

A.  Nobody expressed anything of the kind.

* * *

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Q.  I gather that the idea for putting that little line "ad parody" was not Mr. Flynt's idea, am I right?

A.  It wasn't proposed at that meeting by Mr. Flynt, it was proposed by Mr. Kahn, so I assumed it was not --

Q.  The proponent was Mr. Kahn, not Mr. Flynt, am I right?

A.  To put that disclaimer on, yes, sir.

Q.  And in the course of the length of time that you were discussing that line that Mr. Kahn was vociferously suggesting be there, was there a consideration that perhaps Reverend Falwell would sue Hustler if this ad ran in its pages?

A.  Mr. Kahn pointed out the possibility that that would happen, because it has happened before.

Q.  And had it happened before?  Are you speaking about Mr. Falwell suing?

A.  Yeah.

* * *

Q.  Mr. Garrett, you'd been working for Hustler Magazine or Flynt Publications for how many years prior to August of 1983?

A.  Since August 1st, 1979.  I guess that would be 4.

Q.  So that's about 4 years?

A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  You said that everyone at the meeting thought the proposed ad was funny.  In the 3 hour discussion, did anyone suggest that perhaps some people might not think it was funny?

A.  No, sir.

Q.  You mean everybody at that meeting thought it was hilarious that it should be suggested that Jerry Falwell committed incest with his mother, drank alcoholic beverages and got sloshed before he went into the pulpit?  Is that what you're --

A.  Everyone at the meeting thought it was funny.  Let me amend my last answer.  Everyone at the meeting did not necessarily say that everyone would think it was funny, but they did indicate that no one would take it as anything but attempted humor.  That's -- naturally, what's funny to one person isn't funny to everybody.