News This movie should not be shown in the USA

[edward]

Death of a President

CHICAGO -- A controversial film has moved into 90 theaters across the U.S. Friday, and one of them is in Chicago.

"The Death Of A President" is a fake documentary about the assassination of President George W. Bush in Chicago. It combines real-life footage of World Trade Center protests and of actors.

http://www.nbc5.com/politics/10177457/detail.html

It is against the law to threaten the president, yet some how this fictional UK documentary mockumentary of Bush being assassinated can be shown. This thing may bring a lot of nuts out of their shells.

he was a quiet man, never said much

 

[Checkfate]

While I am not a huge fan of Bush's policies, this "movie" is just plain disrespectful and immoral to say the least...

 

[siddharth]

Come on, it's purely fiction!

It may be disgusting to some, but I think that's no reason to ban this film.

 

[edward]

Come on, it's purely fiction!

It may be disgusting to some, but I think that's no reason to ban this film.

It is not just the idea of a fictional fiilm which depicts the assination of a sitting living president that is a problem, it is the way the mockumentary is made. They are using live footage of Bush wherever possible and either a Bush look alike or some dam good digital trickery in other scenes.

This is taking fiction far too close to reality. Some theater chains have banned it.

 

[devil-fire]

While I am not a huge fan of Bush's policies, this "movie" is just plain disrespectful and immoral to say the least...

how so? iv only seen the clip and read some of the link but i don't see the immorality and disrespectfullness. the controversy isn't apparent to me yet

 

[DaveC426913]

Death of a President



http://www.nbc5.com/politics/10177457/detail.html

It is against the law to threaten the president, yet some how this fictional UK documentary mockumentary of Bush being assassinated can be shown. This thing may bring a lot of nuts out of their shells.

he was a quiet man, never said much

I'm sure they appreciate your free plug.

Now I must go see it to find out what all the controvery is about...

 

[edward]

I'm sure they appreciate your free plug.

Now I must go see it to find out what all the controvery is about...

I didn't plug anything Dave. I insisted that it be unplugged. The world doesn't need me or this forum to promote anything. In the overall scheme of things, we are but a small voice in the wilderness. All we can do here is to either agee or disagree on the matter.

As for the controversy it is as I mentioned, using real video of a real living president in the mocumentary, movie.


Edit: This movie may yet die it's own quiet death. Although it is starting to appear that someone may be using the movie for some bizarre political reason. There was no comment about the movie from the whitehouse.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't see any redeeming value in such a movie, so I won't go see it, nor would I suggest anyone else see it.

The best thing now is just simply don't go see the movie.

I generally avoid violent movies, however I did see Lord of the Rings, Gladiator, The Bourne Identity and a few others.

Gratuitous violence turns me off.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't see any redeeming value in such a movie, so I won't go see it, nor would I suggest anyone else see it.

The best thing now is just simply don't go see the movie.

I generally avoid violent movies, however I did see Lord of the Rings, Gladiator, The Bourne Identity and a few others.

Gratuitous violence turns me off.

I agree with Astronuc's fundamental statement, 'simply don't go see it'.
Though, I personally like gratutitous violence, and I'm not at all violent; I'm all about self-defense; sparring with a willing partner is acceptable in my opinion, and not violent, and violence itself isn't evil. Someone can make me suffer without being violent, and violence may be my only redemption. If you want me to expand on that, I will upon request.

To the particular assassination movie, I wouldn't seek to watch it, but if someone else was playing it, I probably wouldn't be able to take my eyes off it.

Banning movies is silly. The only time to fear a movie is if it's very persuasive and can convince an army of citizens to act on someone else's wishes, in which case a ban isn't even neccisary: in fact, a ban could spark more interest in the viewpoints of the persuader.

A better tactic would be to put a message before the movie by the particular screening agency that indicates that the producers of the movie are trying to persuade you, and you should take the opportunity to be able to sort persuasive media from informative media. Educating people is for more empowering than keeping them ignorant.

 

[Cyrus]

What is this, Communist China where we sensor what can and can't be said?

Oh, brother.

COUGH COUGH **FEARMONGERING** COUGH COUGH

If you don't like the movie, just don't go watch.

Did you seem to forget about that whole 'free speech' deal in the constitution?

Ed, this is sad because your doing everything Bush does and you complain about. My my how we flip flop so fast.

 

[Evo]

What is this, Communist China where we sensor what can and can't be said?

Well, you can't threaten the president.

The film is getting terrible reviews. I'll pass. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/death_of_a_president/

 

[Cyrus]

Who is threating him?

 

[Evo]

Who is threating him?

Edward mentioned the fact in his OP. You seemed to dismiss that, or perhaps you just weren't referring to that part of his post.

 

[Cyrus]

No, he said it is a fake drama about an assination of the president. That's not a threat against the president. It's a story. Read the reviews on your link, none of them talk about any 'threats' being made.

They just said the movie was not well made, and rated it low.

 

[edward]

What is this, Communist China where we sensor what can and can't be said?

Oh, brother.

COUGH COUGH **FEARMONGERING** COUGH COUGH

If you don't like the movie, just don't go watch.

Did you seem to forget about that whole 'free speech' deal in the constitution?

Ed, this is sad because your doing everything Bush does and you complain about. My my how we flip flop so fast.

I may be liberal, but not that liberal. "Anything goes" is not my style. "Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace." (Oscar Wilde.)
I occasionally draw a line.

From what I have seen this movie goes far over the line of reason, consdering the hatred that exists in today's world.


I am not worried about me seeing the movie. As I mentioned before, this unartful piece could incite those of a certain mental state to bring about exactly what happens in the movie.

That said and bearing in mind the timing of the release in the USA, plus the fact that the whitehouse has made no comment on the movie, leads me to wonder if this could possibly be a sick Rovian attempt to get out the republican vote.

 

[Cyrus]

Wow, I never knew you were the morals police Ed.

You know, they have a morals police, in Iran.

From what I have seen this movie goes far over the line of reason, consdering the hatred that exists in today's world

What have you seen? One 5 min trailer.

How does this STORY go over the line. If it were about 911, I could understand. Have you heard of the show 24, where there is a plot to assinate the president that came on FOX during prime time and was a big hit.

Why didnt you complain about that?.....

 

[Cyrus]

As I mentioned before, this unartful piece could incite those of a certain mental state to bring about exactly what happens in the movie.

What a load of crap. I could say the same thing for any movie with violence. This is beyond flawed reasoning. Its flat out wrong.

I guess those war movies are causing the war in Iraq, yes?

 

[edward]

Wow, I never knew you were the morals police Ed.

You know, they have a morals police, in Iran.

Ya well don't get caught with a hooker in Tucson.

What have you seen? One 5 min trailer.

Go to YouTube and search for "Death of a President" there is plenty of video availabe that is not just a trailer footage. How much do you need? The whole blasted mockumentary?

How does this STORY go over the line. If it were about 911, I could understand.

Have you heard of the show 24, where there is a plot to assinate the president that came on FOX during prime time and was a big hit.

I didn't see that, I don't watch much TV. Did it use actual footage of Bush to portray Bush? If it did all hell would have broken loose. I think that 24 also had a plot to blow up LA. 24 is a series right ?, or am I confused no smart arse answers please.

 

[edward]

What a load of crap. I could say the same thing for any movie with violence. This is beyond flawed reasoning. Its flat out wrong.

I guess those war movies are causing the war in Iraq, yes?

Violence begats violence.

 

[Cyrus]

I didn't see that, I don't watch much TV. Did it use actual footage of Bush to portray Bush? If it did all hell would have broken loose. I think that 24 also had a plot to blow up LA. 24 is a series right ?, or am I confused no smart arse answers please.

Yes, this is correct. Ohhhhh, I see. So its suddenly ok becuase the characters name was not Bush.

Ed, tell me. What does it mean to have free speech? I don't think you understand.

Violence begats violence

And nonsense is nonsense.

 

[edward]

Yes, this is correct. Ohhhhh, I see. So its suddenly ok becuase the characters name was not Bush.

Nooo, they didn't use Bush to portray Bush in a documentary where he is assasinated.

Ed, tell me. What does it mean to have free speech? I don't think you understand.

No you don't understand. Try shouting fire in a theater or walk into a police station and start ranting that they are stupid.

Like I said before, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

And nonsense is nonsense.

As far as that line goes I would hope that you were just being facetious?
http://www.research.vt.edu/resmag/sciencecol/media_violence.html

 

[Cyrus]

We're not talking about shouting fire. Were talking about a movie that is based on fiction.

I don't like this, not one bit.

Did you learn nothing from McCarthy?

Don't sit there and tell me you can sensor a movie just because you don't like the content. That's the most un-american thing I have heard you say. Be ashamed.

 

[edward]

cyrus

For the last time, it was not the fictional assassination of a president that I am opposed to. It was the use of video of a sitting living president to make the documentary that I found unacceptable. This was the first time this has ever been done and hopefully the last. There is a psycological aspect to this new fictional type of portrayal that apparently you are not seeing.

 

[Bystander]

cyrus

For the last time, it was not the fictional assassination of a president that I am opposed to. It was the use of video of a sitting living president to make the documentary that I found unacceptable. This was the first time this has ever been done and hopefully the last.

Long way from the "first" time film makers have woven "factual" footage into fairytales.

There is a psycological aspect to this new fictional type of portrayal that apparently you are not seeing.

Does Hollywood, or do media CFOs wince at making money running the WTC collapse footage? No. Does it bother you? Dunno. Me? People are going to be people, and people with the personalities of maggots are going to be people with the personalities of maggots. "Psychological aspect?" Use of "factual" footage in fairytales? Doesn't lend any veracity to the storylines. Don't let it bug you.

 

[devil-fire]

so the controversy is that this movie deals with a subject matter that would be traumatic to the american people in a way that is close to reality? meaning its painfully to be forced to visualize a current president being killed?

 

[Cyrus]

cyrus

For the last time, it was not the fictional assassination of a president that I am opposed to. It was the use of video of a sitting living president to make the documentary that I found unacceptable. This was the first time this has ever been done and hopefully the last. There is a psycological aspect to this new fictional type of portrayal that apparently you are not seeing.

That's even worse. So you are saying there can be no criticism of the president.

What is this 'psycological aspect' you keep talking about? People are not going to run around like chickens with their heads cut off because of a movie. Give me a break.

 

[DaveC426913]

They have the right to go see a movie, just as they have the right to burn the American flag. Believe it or not, burning the American flag is a very pro-American act - it is a right that is protected (unlike less freedom-lovng parts of the world). It falls under peaceful protest and civil disobedience.

And they despise what Edward (nothing personal) represents in terms of telling them what they can and can't feel and express about the country they loved that is going to hell in a handbasket.


"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the last, your right to say it."

Now that's American.

 

[Astronuc]

The discussion of whether a movie or some form of communication which maybe considered offensive in interesting considering, NBC and CW have refused to air promos for another movie which they considering disparaging of the president.

NBC Rejects Ads for Dixie Chicks Documentary
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6397244

Weekend Edition Saturday, October 28, 2006 · The Dixie Chicks are the subject of a new political debate. NBC and the CW won't run ads for Shut Up and Sing, a new documentary about the group. The Dixie Chicks faced a radio boycott in 2003 after lead singer Natalie Maines expressed disfavor for President Bush.

Certainly NBC is well within their right to refuse, but then they would be quite comfortable with airing propaganda from the White House. They of course have business with the US government and do not want to rock the boat.

 

[Kurdt]

The censorship of ideas and opinions should not be endorsed no matter what the content of those opinions and ideas are. The only way society progresses is by discussing different view points and picking out the truths from them so we can moe forward. If you think you'll find the film offensive then don't go and see it but also don't judge it before you've even seen what it has to say in its entirity as it may have some legitimate criticism or point to make.

What I do disagree with is the deliberate lambasting of an idea or person or group of people for the sheer sake of it. I will have to see the film to see what point its trying to put across.

 

[edward]

That's even worse. So you are saying there can be no criticism of the president.

Holy cow cyrus now you are really brouncing off of the walls. If I had a dollar for evry time I have criticized Bush, I would buy a Benz.

What is this 'psycological aspect' you keep talking about? People are not going to run around like chickens with their heads cut off because of a movie. Give me a break.

Actually the expected psycological effect of the movie, if it was to be widely shown in this country, would have been political. It was suspected that this was an attempt to bring out irrate republican voters who have become complacent due to the war and various scandals. This info was in one of the links, but I also heard it direct from a reliable local political source.

If this concept seems rediculous, just look at some of the things Rove has done in the past. He has mastered the art of psycological chicanery.
The fact that the movie only showed up in this country just before the election is significant.

It has now turned out that the people most likely to see the movie will most likely be a bunch of Bush haters. Main stream movie owners have banned the movie.

Pscological/political aspect aside, I still do not believe that it is within the realm of human decency to produce a film using the method that was used. This has nothing to do with criticism of Bush. Nor does it have anything to do with the censorship of words or subject matter. This pseudo documentary crossed the line for me, and I insist that I have the right to state that it did.

 

[edward]

The censorship of ideas and opinions should not be endorsed no matter what the content of those opinions and ideas are. The only way society progresses is by discussing different view points and picking out the truths from them so we can moe forward. If you think you'll find the film offensive then don't go and see it but also don't judge it before you've even seen what it has to say in its entirity as it may have some legitimate criticism or point to make.

What I do disagree with is the deliberate lambasting of an idea or person or group of people for the sheer sake of it. I will have to see the film to see what point its trying to put across.

So how do you feel about child porn? It is legal in some countries. Does that mean it should be legal and uncensored here?

There is always a line that has to be drawn.

 

[Kurdt]

I think you have misinterpreted my point. I wasn't saying that you can show images of anything you like, I was pointing out that people can present an idea or opinion about anything they want including child pornography if they so wish. What they can't do is create and diseminate pornographic materials the subjects of which are minors because that is illegal. The film you are talking about can be shown because it does not break any laws. If it does then ban it. If you wish to draw that line for yourself then so be it, but don't seek to depive others the choice.

 

[Pythagorean]

So how do you feel about child porn? It is legal in some countries. Does that mean it should be legal and uncensored here?

There is always a line that has to be drawn.

a movie about child porn is fine. Usually such movies are in the interest of minimizing child porn in a community.

actual pornograpy isn't even what we're talking about, as that's a recorded act, not a staged repreresentation of an act.

 

[DaveC426913]

So how do you feel about child porn?

You're equating 'criticizing Bush' with 'child porn'?
Wow.

I mean. Wow.

 

[edward]

You're equating 'criticizing Bush' with 'child porn'?
Wow.

I mean. Wow.

Dave
The movie "Death of a President" was not about criticism of Bush. At some point someone just assumed that it was. I in no way included criticism of Bush. Good God I bash the guy myself.

The topic had turned to, censorship, freedom of speech/expression and where do we draw the line. Some say there should be no line. I say there has to be a line we should not cross, and I used child porn as an example., and you took it out of context. The fictional documentary about Bush's assassination, due to the manner in which it was produced, was in a very gray area. For me it had crossed the line and definitely not due to political content.

It doesn't really matter now because most movie chains have refused to show it.

If we want to talk about real censorship, look at the issue where the networks are refusing to run ads promoting the Dixie Chicks documentary. This is censorship of a documentary, "Shut Up and Sing", that is merely politically controversial. If anyone wants to jump on the freedom of speech band wagon with the "Chicks" situation, I will be the first one to join them.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ed, see Brandenburg v. Ohio

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/47/print

The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."

Do you think this documentary will fail this test?

 

[MeJennifer]

If we want to talk about real censorship, look at the issue where the networks are refusing to run ads promoting the Dixie Chicks documentary. This is censorship of a documentary, "Shut Up and Sing", that is merely politically controversial. If anyone wants to jump on the freedom of speech band wagon with the "Chicks" situation, I will be the first one to join them.

Sorry but what you are talking about is not censorship.

Censorship is when it is made unlawful to publish, say or show something.

Here we simply have some private companies deciding what and what not to broadcast. They can broadcast it if they want to, if they could not then that is censorship.

 

[edward]

Ed, see Brandenburg v. Ohio

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/47/print



Do you think this documentary will fail this test?

It won't fail this test, it wasn't the dialog of the movie that was inflamatory.

 

[edward]

Sorry but what you are talking about is not censorship.

Censorship is when it is made unlawful to publish, say or show something.

Here we simply have some private companies deciding what and what not to broadcast. They can broadcast it if they want to, if they could not then that is censorship.

Technically you are correct, but only in a narrow area of the word's meaning. The news media apparently isn't using your version. Sorry about that.

NBC's Censorship of Ads for New Dixie Chicks Documentary 'Astonishing'

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=22959

 

[ptabor]

certainly the film is in poor taste... but to assert that it should not be shown here in the US because it might cause others to act out such actions is absurd.

Has anyone here seen elephant? It's a (rather awful) movie about a couple teens who decide to go on a rampage in their school with mac-10s. The film was made in the documentary style, using live action footage, in a similar fashion to the Bush flick - albeit without references to famous living people.

Given the prevelance of violence in our (the US) schools today, such footage is surely in poor taste... but did it incite others to commit such violent acts? I'd postulate this is unlikely.

As an aside, I don't recall seeing such a vehement reaction to Fox/CNN/every other news network airing video of Daniel Pearl being beheaded. Note, I have not done a search on the topic as I still have grading to do so I could be flat out wrong on this point.

 

[DaveC426913]

I used child porn as an example., and you took it out of context.

How could I possibly have taken it out of context? Have we changed topics?

Your 'child porn' insertion is a straw man. i.e. more easily defensible than - but out-of-context with - the topic being discussed.

 

[edward]

How could I possibly have taken it out of context? Have we changed topics?

Your 'child porn' insertion is a straw man. i.e. more easily defensible than - but out-of-context with - the topic being discussed.

Oh Come on Dave, there is no other way to make a comparison of something that has never been done before without using existing subject matter as a starting point.

Science itself has always compared new discoveries using existing knowledge as an reference point.

You're the one who brought up criticising Bush and child porn in the same sentence. ( out of contest to anything I had posted) I had not even used the term in a single post where Bush was mentioned.

There has to be a line or point beyond which material is not acceptable. As I stated previously I used child porn only as a comparable to the unacceptable material in the documentary.

This all boils down to eliciting undesirable emotions.
And I repeat, the controversy is not about critizing Bush, it is about showing him taking two bullets to the chest.

 

[Gokul43201]

As I stated previously I used child porn only as a comparable to the unacceptable material in the documentary.

I think the only reason child porn is illegal is that the making of the material requires the exploitation of a minor, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the law to say this with any certainty. If, for instance, an animated film were made that depicted child porn, does the law deem such material illegal too? Anyone?

This all boils down to eliciting undesirable emotions.

But what's wrong with just that? Can you demonstrate a direct causation between said undesirable emotions and unlawful activity? If you can, then this will not pass the test of Brandenburg v Ohio.

 

[edward]

I think the only reason child porn is illegal is that the making of the material requires the exploitation of a minor, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the law to say this with any certainty. If, for instance, an animated film were made that depicted child porn, does the law deem such material illegal too? Anyone?

Even animated child porn is illegal in the USA.

Dwight Whorley of Virginia was sentenced to 20 years in prison for 74 counts of child pornography, of which, several consisted of charges for possession of animated child porn. Under the 2003 PROTECT act it is illegal to possesses 'realistic' drawings of children having sex.

http://digg.com/tech_news/20_Years_in_Prison_for_Animated_Child_Porn

But what's wrong with just that? Can you demonstrate a direct causation between said undesirable emotions and unlawful activity? If you can, then this will not pass the test of Brandenburg v Ohio.

It would rarely be the case that a violent response would be a legal response.

Two recently published studies show that prolonged exposure to gratuitous violence in the media can escalate subsequent hostile behaviors and, among some viewers, foster greater acceptance of violence as a means of conflict resolution.

The studies show a callousness of world view, Weaver says. Person A says something bad to Person B and, because Person B has viewed gratuitous violence, he reacts more harshly than he would have reacted otherwise. "I think this tendency will increase," Weaver says, "because these films are teaching people it’s okay to break the rules of civility."

http://www.research.vt.edu/resmag/sciencecol/media_violence.html

I do realize that the link uses the term "prolonged exposure". But hey, we already have had that. And an emotional response, undoubtedbly , is goining to be more prone to provoking a vilolent act than just watching generic violence that evokes little emotion.

 

[Kurdt]

This all boils down to eliciting undesirable emotions.
And I repeat, the controversy is not about critizing Bush, it is about showing him taking two bullets to the chest.

Firstly, the emotions you describe as undesirable are your own and do not apply to everyone else. Secondly, you've said yourself you haven't watched the film so how do you know it doesn't have a legitimate point to make? Why do you continue to argue for censorship just because YOU feel appaled by an entirely legal film?

Your analogy with child porn is ridiculous because child pornography would never be released (certainly not in national cinemas) as its illegal and thus out of context with the film in question which is entirely legal.

 

[edward]

Firstly, the emotions you describe as undesirable are your own and do not apply to everyone else. Secondly, you've said yourself you haven't watched the film so how do you know it doesn't have a legitimate point to make?

The emotions were those of people who have seen the film and have posted reviews of the film on a number of web sites. In addition there were a number of people interviewed on newscasts who showed the same emotions.

Secondly, I have now seen the film, it had nothing but a gratuitous realistic violent act followed by a boring fictional account of the investigation. Have you seen it?? The only part I object to is the way it was made using actual film footage of Bush and some very slick digital effects in the murder scene.

Come to think of it a generation of young people who have grown up on, "win extra points for killing a cop" videos, might enjoy it.

Why do you continue to argue for censorship just because YOU feel appaled by an entirely legal film?

Because the film is represents a perfect example of where we must draw the line of common decency.

Your analogy with child porn is ridiculous because child pornography would never be released (certainly not in national cinemas) as its illegal and thus out of context with the film in question which is entirely legal.

You guys seem to be hung up on the child porn issue. It would be legal in this country if there were there no guidelines for morality. And it is a good example of why we do need to draw a line.

That aside, I used child porn as an example that would/should elicit emotions equilivalent in intensity to the emotions elicited by "Death of a President". Apparently many have become oblivious to the emotions which normally would be the expected response to this type of violence.

 

[Kurdt]

What I propose whether the film is particularly awful or not, is that not everyone will share the same feelings about the film. You don't like it and that's been made clear, but how can you "draw a line" without creating a law that would make the film illegal. If it was inciting violence or had the purpose to incite others to kill the president then it would not have been screened because that is illegal. So what you appear to be proposing is the restriction on the right of people to voice opinions over whatever medium they desire, in effect abolishing free speech.

I have not seen the film myself nor am I defending its content merely its right to exist so I don't see this as a problem. If all you object to is the realism of the film then one must question your ability to distinguish fact from fiction. What does it matter if there's an actor playing Bush or if the clips are of Bush himself? How would using an actor make it any more clear that the film you are watching is a fictional work?

Because the film is represents a perfect example of where we must draw the line of common decency.

As I've said above the law will screen out films that are deemed to be ethically and morally corrupt for that particular society. You seem to be intent on imposing your own will upon others who may not necessarily share your view. If you deem this film to be outside your own ethical and moral standards then fine, tell people you don't like it and why but at least allow them the freedom to chose for themselves rather than calling for it to be banned.

You guys seem to be hung up on the child porn issue. It would be legal in this country if there were there no guidelines for morality. And it is a good example of why we do need to draw a line.

That aside, I used child porn as an example that would/should elicit emotions equilivalent in intensity to the emotions elicited by "Death of a President". Apparently many have become oblivious to the emotions which normally would be the expected response to this type of violence.

We're hung up on it because the point is invalid. Child pornography is illegal and therefore would not be shown as it is considered immoral in our society. This film has been allowed to be released after being scrutinised by a censorship board because it contains nothing that is illegal. That is it does not fall outside the moral boundaries our society has set by the law.

A lot of people aren't disgusted by violence depicted in movies or TV because they know its fictional. I have watched many movies that contain violence and I have never been affected by it because I can distinguish reality from fiction. I was horrified by the pictures from Iraq and the 11/9 footage on the news because I knew real people were suffering. Anyway this is besides the point.

My point was you seemed to be calling for the end to free speech which everyone has a right to no matter how distasteful. Well not everyone but that's a different matter.

 

[Cyrus]

The only part I object to is the way it was made using actual film footage of Bush and some very slick digital effects in the murder scene.

Then don't go watch it. Oops, too late. (Nice catch 22, eh?)

Because the film is represents a perfect example of where we must draw the line of common decency.

Run everyone, the morals police is back! You still don't get free speech, do you?

 

[edward]

What I propose whether the film is particularly awful or not, is that not everyone will share the same feelings about the film. You don't like it and that's been made clear, but how can you "draw a line" without creating a law that would make the film illegal. If it was inciting violence or had the purpose to incite others to kill the president then it would not have been screened because that is illegal.

Have you ever heard of John Hinckley ,a movie called "Taxi Driver", and A prsident named Reagan. Movies are becoming more and more violent, yet you would propose that we wait until a tragedy happens until we do something about the situation. whew 9/11 flashback.

So what you appear to be proposing is the restriction on the right of people to voice opinions over whatever medium they desire, in effect abolishing free speech.

LOL There you go again. I believe in free speech just as much as any reasonable "liberal" person. A movie that had the potential to bring about open season on presidents is quite another matter.

What does it matter if there's an actor playing Bush or if the clips are of Bush himself? How would using an actor make it any more clear that the film you are watching is a fictional work?

It was merely cartoons that brought about Islamic riots in europe.

As I've said above the law will screen out films that are deemed to be ethically and morally corrupt for that particular society.

The law and who would that be, the people are supposedly the law in a democracy.

You seem to be intent on imposing your own will upon others who may not necessarily share your view. If you deem this film to be outside your own ethical and moral standards then fine, tell people you don't like it and why but at least allow them the freedom to chose for themselves rather than calling for it to be banned.

I doubt that my personal will would bring about the banning of anything. I along with others have had a hell of a time just trying to get junk food vending machines pulled out of local schools. In the end it took both the Sate and federal government to do it.

We're hung up on it because the point is invalid. Child pornography is illegal and therefore would not be shown as it is considered immoral in our society. This film has been allowed to be released after being scrutinised by a censorship board because it contains nothing that is illegal. That is it does not fall outside the moral boundaries our society has set by the law.

Bear in mind that it was by the will of the people that child porn became illegal, as will one day the decadent sensless meaningless violence being thrust upon our citizens, especially the youth of our country. The country functioned just fine without it. The only thing that comes out of watching violence is that one tends to become more violent. (see link above)

A lot of people aren't disgusted by violence depicted in movies or TV because they know its fictional. I have watched many movies that contain violence and I have never been affected by it because I can distinguish reality from fiction.

Most people can distinguish fact from fiction in the movies. On the other hand most people do not realize that watching violence will affect the way that they will react to real life situations in the future.

My point was you seemed to be calling for the end to free speech which everyone has a right to no matter how distasteful. Well not everyone but that's a different matter.

Equating a suggested ban of one movie to a call for the end to free speech is a bit extreme.

 

[DaveC426913]

... you would propose that we wait until a tragedy happens until we do something about the situation.

A movie that had the potential to bring about open season on presidents is quite another matter.

Can you elaborate on these points please? Are you suggesting these movies are not merely over some moral line, but that they have a direct cause-effect relationship with attempts at assassination of the president?