|
Post by Britney on Sept 1, 2006 8:57:37 GMT -5
There is this new movie coming out made in Britain that features an assassination on Bush. It is a documentary-style movie made in the future, looking back at his assassination in 2007 and the events that unfold afterward. www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200609/CUL20060901a.htmlShould this sort of thing be legal? What if such a movie spurred people into believing that killing the president was justified? If I hate you, should I be allowed to make a movie that features me killing you, and release it out to the mass public? Is that right? What benefit is derived from such an excercise of freedom of speech?
|
|
|
Post by eek on Sept 1, 2006 9:06:42 GMT -5
Well, I don't see much wrong with it assuming the subject approves of it, which I can't see happening very often. Thing is, you could just change the names and there probably wouldn't be half the fuss made about it.
I don't think a movie could ever make someone believe that killing him is right, to be honest. Or, at least, not anyone who has an ounce of sanity, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Sept 1, 2006 9:24:02 GMT -5
What if I made a movie about you where I didn't just stop at killing you, but I put you through extreme sadistic rape and torture for the entire duration of the film. If I then wanted to widely distribute it (in a manner which everyone who saw it would obviously know that you personally were the victim - as is the case with this movie), should I be allowed to do so?
For all the fuss of people on the net currently claiming that this movie serves a necessary niche of "political criticism" and maintanence of "free speech", this seems to me a rather barbaric use of technology to no real benefitial purpose. But if its allowed to continue, expect the scenario I described up above to become everyday and commonplace. When you have an enemy, you will make a movie about you killing them and throw it on the net.
|
|
|
Post by eek on Sept 1, 2006 9:32:35 GMT -5
Well, that's the thing, I wouldn't want someone to make a movie about me in that way, so in that scenario it shouldn't be allowed. But if someone didn't mind, I reckon it would be okay. Free speech and all that stuff is fine up until it causes harm. Now, if the subject gave permission for such a film (which, if an enemy made it, wouldn't be likely), then it's their own fault if they don't like the result. Doing it out of spite seems kinda silly to me, though. I'd rather things like that were made to prove a worthwhile point, if they absolutely NEED to.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Sept 1, 2006 9:59:49 GMT -5
I think it is protected by freedom of speech. What if I made a movie about you where I didn't just stop at killing you, but I put you through extreme sadistic rape and torture for the entire duration of the film. If I then wanted to widely distribute it (in a manner which everyone who saw it would obviously know that you personally were the victim - as is the case with this movie), should I be allowed to do so? No, you shouldn't, and actually, you probably(it would depend on the state, the judge, and how much you have to pay a lawyer) aren't allowed to do so. Such a movie about Eek would probably fall under the category of libel. So, why doesn't this apply to good old George Bush? Well, as a political figure he's made the choice to expose himself to slander and such, which means he's much easier to attack (legally)... Of course, I'm not an expert of slander and libel and most of my information on the subject comes from an 11th grade History Teacher who didn't know her history and Wikipedia, so I may be a bit wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Sept 1, 2006 10:54:51 GMT -5
I think it is protected by freedom of speech. What if I made a movie about you where I didn't just stop at killing you, but I put you through extreme sadistic rape and torture for the entire duration of the film. If I then wanted to widely distribute it (in a manner which everyone who saw it would obviously know that you personally were the victim - as is the case with this movie), should I be allowed to do so? No, you shouldn't, and actually, you probably(it would depend on the state, the judge, and how much you have to pay a lawyer) aren't allowed to do so. Such a movie about Eek would probably fall under the category of libel. So, why doesn't this apply to good old George Bush? Well, as a political figure he's made the choice to expose himself to slander and such, which means he's much easier to attack (legally)... Of course, I'm not an expert of slander and libel and most of my information on the subject comes from an 11th grade History Teacher who didn't know her history and Wikipedia, so I may be a bit wrong. Yep I had to write a paper on the development of libel laws two terms ago - the trend I discovered was that, in a majority of cases, the press has been allowed more and more freedom to portray public AND private figures however they want (of course, private figures still retain more right to privacy than public figures, who get absolutely destroyed). But I would deem libel to be irrelevent in this circumstance - how is this movie (or my hypothetical movie) portraying libel and slander? It just shows the president getting shot (or a hypothetical enemy being tortured) - if I include a disclaimer at the beginning of my film saying that "all scenes in this film are ficticous", then the film does not fit under libel's definition of "a FALSE statement causing injury to one's reputation".
|
|
|
Post by Hunessai on Sept 1, 2006 11:21:45 GMT -5
It doesn't seem that the movie focuses much on the gore of the assassination scene, if there is one at all. If this is the case, of course it should be legal. People get killed in movies and in games and in books all the time. Since they are using Bush's name, it would be appropriate that they place a disclaimer on the film.
Even if the scene was particularly gorey, I think that only it's rating should go up.
|
|
|
Post by Mistress.Nairakarn on Sept 1, 2006 20:07:47 GMT -5
There is this new movie coming out made in Britain that features an assassination on Bush. It is a documentary-style movie made in the future, looking back at his assassination in 2007 and the events that unfold afterward. www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200609/CUL20060901a.htmlShould this sort of thing be legal? What if such a movie spurred people into believing that killing the president was justified? If I hate you, should I be allowed to make a movie that features me killing you, and release it out to the mass public? Is that right? What benefit is derived from such an excercise of freedom of speech? Well... I wouldn't have any SORROW should that happen... But also IF the president were to be assassinated, security would go up VERY high, plus I heard somewhere they often have a habit of, making the assassinated Presidents, sound better than they really are. So ironically despite my obvious dislike of Dubya, him being assassinated would be a nightmare... This is going to sound "Ultra-Unpatriotic' of me to some, but I really wouldn't care what happens to George Bush, and to a extent have few feelings other than intense hostility towards him, but if he were assassinated... It would very likely... Almost certainly actually, make things even worse then they already are, then people would feel all sorry for him, and in their sympathy, may start thinking of him as a 'good President' (Which he isn't in my opinion), so despite completely disliking him, Dubya being assassinated, would ironically be a nightmare. This sounds VERY controversial... But I hold no respect for anyone, just because of social authority or being a President, and it's not that I view SUCH as unjustified, but two things... 1. I am a pacafist, even if I have hostile urges at times. 2. I would be focused on keeping Bush alive, and in good physical health so long as he is President, for the SOLE purpose, of people not feeling sorry for him, or risking him being 'admired' in the future just for being an assassinated president. And three, security would just become even more tight, if the President were to be killed. Which is why I am so against harming bush, despite ironically... Hating him to put it very lightly. So long as it doesn't TELL people, to "Kill Dubya", and doesn't ASK people to take actual physical action, I see no reason to... As always I am pro free speech, no matter how much I disagree. I have no emotional conflicts with those, who hate George Bush to that extreme, heck I understand them... I just view them as very misguided, and their intense hatred, is interfering with their logic, where they forget that killing Bush (in my opinion), wouldn't help things for anyone Anti-Bush, and just make things worse. (Sorry if this post is EXTREMELY controversial, and I am trying not to offend anyone, but George Bush, Free Speech, and talking about Presidents being assassinated, are very controversial subjects. Especially combined).
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Sept 2, 2006 2:09:07 GMT -5
There is this new movie coming out made in Britain that features an assassination on Bush. It is a documentary-style movie made in the future, looking back at his assassination in 2007 and the events that unfold afterward. www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200609/CUL20060901a.htmlShould this sort of thing be legal? What if such a movie spurred people into believing that killing the president was justified? If I hate you, should I be allowed to make a movie that features me killing you, and release it out to the mass public? Is that right? What benefit is derived from such an excercise of freedom of speech? Well... I wouldn't have any SORROW should that happen... But also IF the president were to be assassinated, security would go up VERY high, plus I heard somewhere they often have a habit of, making the assassinated Presidents, sound better than they really are. So ironically despite my obvious dislike of Dubya, him being assassinated would be a nightmare... This is going to sound "Ultra-Unpatriotic' of me to some, but I really wouldn't care what happens to George Bush, and to a extent have few feelings other than intense hostility towards him, but if he were assassinated... It would very likely... Almost certainly actually, make things even worse then they already are, then people would feel all sorry for him, and in their sympathy, may start thinking of him as a 'good President' (Which he isn't in my opinion), so despite completely disliking him, Dubya being assassinated, would ironically be a nightmare. This sounds VERY controversial... But I hold no respect for anyone, just because of social authority or being a President, and it's not that I view SUCH as unjustified, but two things... 1. I am a pacafist, even if I have hostile urges at times. 2. I would be focused on keeping Bush alive, and in good physical health so long as he is President, for the SOLE purpose, of people not feeling sorry for him, or risking him being 'admired' in the future just for being an assassinated president. And three, security would just become even more tight, if the President were to be killed. Which is why I am so against harming bush, despite ironically... Hating him to put it very lightly. So long as it doesn't TELL people, to "Kill Dubya", and doesn't ASK people to take actual physical action, I see no reason to... As always I am pro free speech, no matter how much I disagree. I have no emotional conflicts with those, who hate George Bush to that extreme, heck I understand them... I just view them as very misguided, and their intense hatred, is interfering with their logic, where they forget that killing Bush (in my opinion), wouldn't help things for anyone Anti-Bush, and just make things worse. (Sorry if this post is EXTREMELY controversial, and I am trying not to offend anyone, but George Bush, Free Speech, and talking about Presidents being assassinated, are very controversial subjects. Especially combined). No need to apologize Mrs Nairakarn, I want everyone's opinion on this, no matter how blunt or how controversial. I for one wouldn't want someone to make such a video of me, and I believe in the old "treat others as you wish to be treated"... Regardless of politics, I don't approve of this. There are ways to get the same idea's across without portraying someone's hypothetical murder on screen. To speak out againt someone and their beliefs is one thing, but it is beyond distasteful and unnecessary to portray someone's physical destruction in place of making any verbal counterpoint to their beliefs. Its a cheap shot. If you are going to make an argument against this guy's opinions, then make an argument, there is no need to kill him.
|
|
|
Post by lulu on Sept 2, 2006 2:12:09 GMT -5
I'm debating whether I should delete this thread. There just might be a chance big brother is watching.
|
|
|
Post by lulu on Sept 2, 2006 2:44:48 GMT -5
I've come to the decision of just renaming it. It's best that when fed internet cronies google "Death of a President" they don't land on this topic and mysteriously shut us down, and kidnap shane.
|
|
|
Post by Mistress.Nairakarn on Sept 2, 2006 2:45:55 GMT -5
I'm debating whether I should delete this thread. There just might be a chance big brother is watching. Seriously?... Or is it something else really? No need to apologize Mrs Nairakarn, I want everyone's opinion on this, no matter how blunt or how controversial. I for one wouldn't want someone to make such a video of me, and I believe in the old "treat others as you wish to be treated"... I understand that perfectly. Regardless of politics, I don't approve of this. There are ways to get the same idea's across without portraying someone's hypothetical murder on screen. To speak out againt someone and their beliefs is one thing, but it is beyond distasteful and unnecessary to portray someone's physical destruction in place of making any verbal counterpoint to their beliefs. Its a cheap shot. If you are going to make an argument against this guy's opinions, then make an argument, there is no need to kill him. I don't really approve of expressing PURE hate either regardless, of the situation, even if the target has my maximum amount of disdain. Of course I get you're point here. I simply understand, why people would be so mad at him, and support free speech... Generally no matter HOW pointless, it may be. Even if some things get on my nerves. This isn't really one of them however. In my views, I'd more prefer a video showing, what many would see as Logical flaws, in George Bush, possible signs of corruption in his mannerisms, and what he says, and the results of the destruction (some of us believe, me included) he has caused.
|
|
|
Post by lulu on Sept 2, 2006 3:02:35 GMT -5
Seriously?... Or is it something else really? I've come to the decision of just renaming it. It's best that when fed internet cronies google "Death of a President" they don't land on this topic and mysteriously shut us down, and kidnap shane. and kidnap nairakarn...
|
|
|
Post by ShadowLynx on Sept 2, 2006 13:52:10 GMT -5
I heard on CNN they might not put it in America...
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mastab on Sept 2, 2006 22:22:22 GMT -5
Britney: Godess of Debate
I think they should be able to make the movie. Not only would I cheer if Bush was killed, but I think that a FICTIONAL movie should be allowed to have FICTIONAL events in it that relate to real life.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Sept 3, 2006 11:02:03 GMT -5
But I would deem libel to be irrelevent in this circumstance - how is this movie (or my hypothetical movie) portraying libel and slander? It just shows the president getting shot (or a hypothetical enemy being tortured) - if I include a disclaimer at the beginning of my film saying that "all scenes in this film are ficticous", then the film does not fit under libel's definition of "a FALSE statement causing injury to one's reputation". Yes, it wouldn't apply to a movie about Bush. I was saying it would apply to a movie that was all Eek getting raped all the time.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Sept 3, 2006 11:16:35 GMT -5
I'm not too sure about american law but isnt your 1st amendment about freedom of speech?
People can make pornography and freely distribute it to the apropriate audience, so why cant a guy make a movie about assassinating the president?
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Sept 3, 2006 11:55:11 GMT -5
I'm not too sure about american law but isnt your 1st amendment about freedom of speech? People can make pornography and freely distribute it to the apropriate audience, so why cant a guy make a movie about assassinating the president? Because the "freedom of speech" granted in the constitution is not absolute - it is a federal crime to scream "bomb" on an airplane, theatre or crowded area (if there is no bomb), just as it is a law to defame or libel, or to say you will kill the pres. The benefits (if there are any) of making such statements do not outweigh the cost. Also I think snuff films are illegal too, so not everything can be put on film and marketed (legally).
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on Sept 3, 2006 12:11:58 GMT -5
I have to say no to that, I disagree on so many levels. I think it is wrong to depict the killing of a real life figure in a realistic manor, epically without consent. For the legality of it, I'm not sure that it violates "imminent lawless action", but I could be wrong about it.
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Sept 3, 2006 15:36:54 GMT -5
I don't approve, but it should be allowed legally.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Sept 3, 2006 21:37:38 GMT -5
What about the many movies where americans kill "bad guy" leaders? Is it wrong to depict osama bin ladan getting shot? If so why is it wrong to depict the assassination of bush?
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Sept 3, 2006 23:48:27 GMT -5
What about the many movies where americans kill "bad guy" leaders? Is it wrong to depict osama bin ladan getting shot? If so why is it wrong to depict the assassination of bush? What movie features Americans killing a currently living leader?
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mastab on Sept 4, 2006 0:26:37 GMT -5
Team America: World Police does, but that's a bit of a joke (when they blow up Kim Jong Il's head a cocaroach alien climbs out)
|
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Sept 4, 2006 4:22:38 GMT -5
While I disagree with the content, I believe it should be pushed through.
Now... about that movie where Hillary Clinton gets killed, now that sounds funny.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Sept 4, 2006 9:48:49 GMT -5
What about the many movies where americans kill "bad guy" leaders? Is it wrong to depict osama bin ladan getting shot? If so why is it wrong to depict the assassination of bush? What movie features Americans killing a currently living leader? Just about every corny military film. Hell, google osama or saddam of what ever and get the thousands apon millions of "shoot osama" flash games ect. These are all the same things, the all depict the assassination of a leader. Just because bush is presedent doesnt mean people arent going to make movies about him. A movie will not cause someone to just say "hey, that sounds like a good idea, lets shoot bush tomorrow" so why is it such an outrage? Your fear is completely unfounded. If people were going to assassinate bush, no british movie would help or hinder their cause... wtf do we want to cencor this type of thing? Its a movie, a story role played by actors and captured on film... A story.
|
|