News This movie should not be shown in the USA

[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?

 

[edward]

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



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

Good God cyrus I have been on the free speech band wagon for the last 40 years. However when I started reading lately about the effects of violence on our society, I realized that we must draw a line.

A few years ago I saw a movie that was advertised as being banned in Denmark, and it was done so in a manner that was supposed to give people the idea that it was tooo sexy for Denmark. What a laugh, movies in Denmark are notoriously sexually liberated. What they don't tolerate is violence. And that is why the movie was banned in Denmark.

Our society has gone haywire. Little old ladies will have a fit over a bare breast in a movie, but will tolerate bloody shotgun scenes. Whats up with this? What is the more natural act, sex or murder? And what the heck happened to a good old fashioned mystery drammas? People don't want movies that make them have to think, they just want to sit there mindlessly watching the bloody mayhem. If a movie has more than three or four characters they can't keep up with the plot.

arrggg arrggg aarrrgg the end

 

[Cyrus]

Excuse me but let me say, soooooooooooooooooooo what?

What does that have to do with free speech?

I can see the morals police is back to govern society. Fantastic.

Ed, you don't like the movie, don't go see it. THE END.

 

[edward]

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?

Dave it has happened before. After Hinckley's attempt to assassinate Reagan his lawyers even tried to use the movie "Taxi Driver" as an excuse for his plea of temporary insanity. As we know that didn't fly with the jury, but never the less he was influeced greatly by the movie.

We live in very troubled times. I have posted a link on watching viloence and the long term affect on people. And there are dozens of links and studies that all arrive at the same conclusion.

I remember as a seventeen year old being in NYC and seeing Ike's limo drive buy. He was waving at the crowd from an open vehicle. Imagine a president doing that now. What happened? Forty years of a an increasingly violent culture. Oswald didn't help, it was the first time that people watched a murder over and over. Murder somehow became the norm.

We are even in a cycle of ever increasing violence. Each movie has to be a bit more violent than the last to be accepted. Give me a good old fashioned comedy with a bit of sex in it and where everyone leaves the theater smiling. please

 

[edward]

Excuse me but let me say, soooooooooooooooooooo what?

What does that have to do with free speech?

I can see the morals police is back to govern society. Fantastic.

Ed, you don't like the movie, don't go see it. THE END.

Right back attcha cyrus

 

[Cyrus]

Who are you, Pastor Edward now?

Giving morality speches to me. Save them.

 

[Cyrus]

Right back attcha cyrus

Maybe you should make a point for a change Edward. What you have posted is nothing but your (wrong) opinion. And in the process taken away free speech. Good job.

 

[edward]

Maybe you should make a point for a change Edward. What you have posted is nothing but your (wrong) opinion. And in the process taken away free speech. Good job.

CYRUS you make a good case for bringing back the draft. Bug off little man. You wanted the ad hom you earned it and you got it.
Good luck when you experience the real world and mommy and daddy arent there to protect you.

 

[Cyrus]

CYRUS you make a good case for bringing back the draft. Bug off little man.

AHAHAHAHAH.

No, seriously. What your saying makes no sense to anyone but yourself. Stop trampling on my rights. I am still waiting for a point though.

 

[Evo]

All right, enough. I think we've killed this subject.