Larry Flynt, a pornographer, went to court to prevent Flynt's Hustler Magazine from being censored. Alan Isaacman represented Flynt in court and used a variety of appeals to avoid censorship. Isaacman's closing argument from The People vs. Larry Flynt employed all aspects of both of Aristotle's versions of ethos. Each element of Aristotle's first version of ethos was appealed to in Isaacman's closing argument. Isaacman established his practical wisdom and his sense of altruism, although, his commitment to principles, will-power, was most evident in his closing argument. Isaccman's will-power, strength to adhere to one's principles, defended freedom and motivated his argument of why Flynt's Hustler Magazine should not be censored. The personal code of conduct that Isaccman shared with the jury was sharing…show more content… Isaacman's closing argument in an effort to appeal to the character of his audience. The use of tone and diction played a large role in the successful use of the second version of ethos. Isaacman specifically used diction that was simple and relatable for each one of the people on the jury. It was this specific use of diction that enabled the patriotic tone to be felt by the jury. “WE LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY.” (Isaacman 1) increased the feeling of nationality which was capitalized on by Isaacman in order to associate himself with the patriotism his audience valued. This statement also accounted for the jury's fear of potentially losing their rights. Isaacman further appealed to Aristotle's second version of ethos by making a connection to his audience. When Isaacman shared how he felt, he suggested to the jury “... you should care about it too. You really should.” (Isaacman 1) hence finding common ground as Americans. In making this connection with the audience, Isaacman was able to draw in the people of the jury so that they would be more likely to conclude in favor of of not censoring Flynt's Hustler
