Free expression? Please. Businesses are not people. A business has no "right" of free speech whatsoever. They can purchase an ad, and individual people (whose speech does, actually, have some protections) can attempt to get it out of the public eye if they wish. But I cry no tears over a business's free speech.
...burning baby fish swimming all round your head.
Drusilla ,'Conversations with Dead People'
Buffista Movies 5: Development Hell
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
Ash - Mar 28, 2007 3:40:55 pm PDT #8021 of 10001
Sean K - Mar 28, 2007 3:57:59 pm PDT #8022 of 10001
You can't leave me to my own devices; my devices are Nap and Eat. -Zenkitty
Can a community ever be wrong?
That question's a bit vague. Can I disagree with a "community decision"? Sure. I don't get a say if I don't live there, though. Even if I do, if more people in the community are in favor of a decision I disagree with than are against, I've had my say but I don't get my way.
Can a community make a mistaken or misguided judgement? Sure, happens all the time. Sometimes bad judgements get corrected later, sometimes they don't.
As far as the film itself goes, I actually don't approve of preventing it from being shown. I may or may not ever see it, but I'm fine with it still being released. The kind of power the MPAA has over this decision is perhaps too much, but that's another discussion. And frankly, I think even without a rating, the movie will get shown and seen. Actually, I'll be surprised if the studio can't come to some sort of agreement with the MPAA over the matter.
§ ita § - Mar 28, 2007 4:04:08 pm PDT #8023 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I think "community standards" is either vague or mutable. "Marketplace standards" I get, and think they're extremely applicable in scenarios like this. Those standards are measured by the dollar. Even then, you don't know how many sales you lost vs. how many you never had to begin with, etc.
Community standards can be the standards of the majority, but they can quite as easily become inextricable from the standards of the loudest, and that's not something I think is a good rule to be guided by.
Sean K - Mar 28, 2007 4:06:10 pm PDT #8024 of 10001
You can't leave me to my own devices; my devices are Nap and Eat. -Zenkitty
Community standards can be the standards of the majority, but they can quite as easily become inextricable from the standards of the loudest, and that's not something I think is a good rule to be guided by.
I certainly agree with that.
Hayden - Mar 28, 2007 4:54:54 pm PDT #8025 of 10001
aka "The artist formerly known as Corwood Industries."
Can a community ever be wrong?
Well, there's the notorious example of the German judge agreeing that an Afghani immigrant has the right to beat his wife because that's the norm in his community. There's not a single example of rightness there.
Strega - Mar 28, 2007 7:12:51 pm PDT #8026 of 10001
all expression still has to pass the community standards test
I'm not cool with the concept of community standards, either.
Free expression as important to me and GC as it is to you
I'm not saying you're fascists or judging your character or anything. I'm aware that I'm an extremist on this. But since I'm saying "freedom of expression trumps other concerns" and you're disagreeing, I have to think it is more important to me, at least in this instance.
Businesses are not people. A business has no "right" of free speech whatsoever.
No? That's why there was such a fuss over campaign finance reform. Google "corporate personhood." This isn't a bad place to start: [link]
But regardless... does that mean that the billboard be perfectly fine if an individual person had put it up, and it's only objectionable because of who paid for it?
Tom Scola - Mar 29, 2007 4:58:09 am PDT #8027 of 10001
Remember that the frontier of the Rebellion is everywhere. And even the smallest act of insurrection pushes our lines forward.
as an homage to Howard Hawks' classic 1932 Scarface, Scorsese scattered Xs throughout the movie (some more subtle than others), using them as a symbol of impending doom.
Matt the Bruins fan - Mar 29, 2007 5:14:28 am PDT #8028 of 10001
"I remember when they eventually introduced that drug kingpin who murdered people and smuggled drugs inside snakes and I was like 'Finally. A normal person.'” —RahvinDragand
Fred Pete - Mar 29, 2007 6:05:29 am PDT #8029 of 10001
Ann, that's a ferret.
...as do most of the commenters, who seem to take the "Mel had every right to make the movie he wanted, and nobody has any right to criticize hiim" line.
Anne W. - Mar 30, 2007 1:07:33 am PDT #8030 of 10001
The lost sheep grow teeth, forsake their lambs, and lie with the lions.
I'm not sure what it says about my mind that my first thought on seeing that link was "Mel Brooks? What did he do that makes people want him to go away?"