IANAL but I believe Larry Flynt's case only established that a public figure can not be awarded damages for "emotional distress" caused by hurtful remarks done in satire or parody. I do not believe that affords protection from libel should the criteria for libel be met (which, as others have pointed out, is quite difficult to prove).
To quote Zed Shaw: "If they have a blog, speak at conferences, publish papers, or write books then they are public figures"
Thank Larry Flynt