1.)  These stories are from 1995-1996 and dealt with a PFLAG (Parents
and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) case against Pat Robertson and CBN.

2.  The main attorney on the case was Walter Smith, Jr. (the same man
who was in the LA Times story yesterday.)

3.)  I have verified that JUDGE ROBERTS DID NOT HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THIS 
__________________________________________

GAYS LAUNCH TV-AD WAR

STEVE STONE, Roanoke Times & World News (Roanoke, VA)
March 3, 1996, SUNDAY, METRO EDITION

A HOMOSEXUAL-RIGHTS GROUP is fighting to air advertisements that
suggest Pat Robertson's anti-gay sermons promote violence.

It's a battle of words about words - and who controls them.

So far, Pat Robertson and the Christian Broadcasting Network have been
the winners, thwarting most efforts of a national gay-advocacy group to
broadcast paid television advertisements that include video clips of
Robertson on CBN condemning homosexuality.

Now, however, the advertiser has turned the tables.

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays has enlisted a
Washington law firm and warned Virginia Beach-based CBN that it will
be taken to court if it continues to threaten broadcasters with lawsuits
if they accept the advertisements.

''Usually, broadcasters are quite happy to have their words
repeated,'' PFLAG attorney Walter A. Smith Jr. said. ''The great irony is that
(Robertson) is trying to stop his own words from being used.''

Smith, a partner in Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., one of Washington's
largest law firms, said that if Robertson ''thinks there is something wrong
with his words, he should do something to correct them. And he has the
platform to do it. But he ought not to have the power to keep others
from responding to him.''

The two 30-second advertisements assert that there is a relationship
between anti-homosexual statements and violence against gays and
lesbians, as well as suicides among homosexual teen-agers.

In both ads, Robertson declares: ''Homosexuality is an abomination.
...
The practices of these people is appalling. It is a pathology. It is a
sickness.'' The statements are drawn from broadcasts of CBN's flagship
program, ''The 700 Club,'' of which Robertson is host.

''That kind of strident, anti-gay rhetoric helps to contribute to an
atmosphere, an environment, where hate crimes are more likely to
occur,'' Smith said. PFLAG ''never said that Pat espouses hate crimes.
But when you hear that rhetoric over and over again ... well, speech
is powerful.''

CBN spokesman Gene Kapp said, however, that the advertising campaign
"is a misguided effort to link Pat Robertson and CBN to the violence."

In opposing broadcast of the ads - and related newspaper ads - CBN has
argued that the video of Robertson and his words are copyrighted; that
they have been used in a way that defames Robertson; and that he is
being personally attacked.

''Like millions of others, the Christian Broadcasting Network and Mr.
Robertson believe that homosexual behavior is morally wrong and
violates biblical principles fundamental to Christian belief,'' Kapp
said. ''That religious belief is balanced, however, by the same love and
compassion that has been the cornerstone of this ministry for 35
years.''

And Robertson has gone on record opposing violence against gay men and
lesbians. In a March 28, 1995, broadcast of ''The 700 Club,'' Robertson
said: ''We abhor violence against homosexuals. We would counsel strongly
in relation to homosexuality that you could hold your religious beliefs
without beating people up and being violent.''

The ads don't mention those statements. But Smith said Robertson's few
comments against violence don't offset his many condemnations of
homosexuality.

''It's a little like showing the bloody handkerchief to the jury and
then saying they should disregard it,'' Smith said. ''Strident
statements are remembered and have the greatest effect on people.''

The advertisements were intended as the centerpiece of ''Project Open
Mind,'' a multimedia campaign ''designed to confront the nation with
the truth about the effects of intolerance and hatred directed at lesbian,
gay and bisexual Americans by anti-gay groups.''

The first cities targeted for the campaign were Washington, D.C.;
Atlanta; Tulsa, Okla.; and Houston, all of which have active PFLAG
chapters.

There also has been discussion about trying to broadcast them in
Hampton Roads, Garrett said.

One ad depicts a gay man being chased down and beaten by a mob shouting
homosexual epithets. Another shows a young lesbian holding a pistol and
contemplating suicide. Both are interspersed with video of Robertson and
the Rev. Jerry Falwell. One includes North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms.

Shortly after the campaign was announced in November, however, and
before the ads could be aired, CBN's associate general counsel, Bruce
D. Hausknecht, wrote a letter addressed ''to all general managers'' at
television stations and cable companies in the areas.

''The spots contain defamatory material and cast Pat Robertson and CBN
in a false light by implying that Pat advocates/promotes heinous
crimes against gays or directly caused the suicide of one or more homosexual
persons,'' Hausknecht wrote. ''This is outrageously false and severely
damaging to the reputation of Dr. Robertson and this ministry.''

He warned any station airing the ads: ''We will immediately seek
judicial redress ... injunctive relief and monetary damages.''

Despite having contracts with several stations, the PFLAG ads never
ran on most. One Houston station did run them for a week, but it, too,
pulled the plug after getting a second, more blunt letter from CBN
demanding an on-air apology and equal time to respond.

Media watchers who have seen the ads agree they are hard-edged.

''The commercials are crude,'' Frank Rich wrote in The New York Times.
''Almost as crude as some of the political propaganda put out by Mr.
Robertson's Christian Coalition.''

CNN and Court-TV refused to broadcast the ads.

''We must have a feeling that the claims are reasonable, fair,'' a CNN
spokesman told Advertising Age, a trade journal.

Steve Wasserman, general manager of KPRC-TV in Houston, said his
station rejected the ads because they were ''potentially inflammatory
and unfair.'' He added: ''It's not the message we're questioning. It is
how the message is being conveyed.''

On the offensive, PFLAG is ready to launch a media buy in the Seattle
area and hopes that having its lawyers on board will forestall any
effort by CBN to persuade stations to refuse the ads.

In a Feb. 2 letter to Robertson, a copy of which was obtained by the
Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, PFLAG's law firm wrote: ''None of the (CBN)
claims has merit, and any suit based on those claims that either you
or CBN might bring would fail.''

Smith, one of four lawyers who signed the seven-page letter in which
each of CBN's claims is addressed and dismissed, is coordinating the
case. His firm took it on a pro bono - free - basis.

''We were looking at this as a little guy against a big guy,'' Smith
said. ''And we thought a very important principle was at stake here, a
First Amendment issue.''

There has not yet been a reply to the letter, which invites Robertson
and his lawyers to sit down with PFLAG and its attorneys and come to
an agreement rather than risk legal action. ''It is being reviewed by our
counsel,'' Kapp said.

###

Flying the PFLAG

Legal Times, December 18, 1995 / December 25, 1995

D.C.'s Hogan & Hartson is taking on Parents, Families and Friends of
Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) as a pro bono client. The group sought
counsel after Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network attacked
its TV ad campaign. The campaign, aimed at highlighting the harm done by
anti-gay rhetoric, mixes CBN footage of Robertson and others making
anti-gay statements with scenes of gay-bashing. CBN wrote to target TV
stations claiming that the ads engaged in defamation and copyright
infringement; CBN also threatened to sue to stop the ads. PFLAG's Hogan
lawyers include partners A. Lee Bentley III, Robert Corn-Revere, Walter
Smith Jr., and Allen Snyder. (Snyder represents Court TV.) Says Smith:
"We want to be sure that PFLAG's right to offer its point of view is not
unfairly interfered with."