Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Freedom of Expression must include the right to offend
There are a lot of news articles out right now about the Dixie Chicks documentary and the pseudo-documentary "Death of a President" which carries on as if Pres. Bush has been assassinated. The publicity all seems to say that most film houses refuse to show the films because the subject matter is offensive and is against the current administration. And then the film producers whine about their freedom of speech/expression.
I understand that this is a marketing ploy, but really: can we really, honestly believe that film houses don't have the right to not show whatever movie they don't think will make them money? The freedom of speech has a lot more to do with the fact that you cannot be arrested for believing or saying anything. You are legally allowed to want someone to be dead and to tell that to anyone you want. That's fine, as long as you don't try to bring that about in any way. It's related to freedom of the press: you have the right to print (or broadcast) anything, and with that right comes the social responsibility to make sure that the difference between opinion and fact are clearly stated in your press release. Are you legally forbidden to lie in the paper or in the news? Well...kinda. You can sue for libel and slander, but the government cannot silence you.
As for movies, you can make a movie about whatever you want. You can even produce whatever movie you want. In fact, you can own a movie house and show whatever movie you want. But the owners of theaters don't have as lofty ideals as most directors and are usually driven by income. And documentaries have primarily played in indy houses for decades. The recent exception of the Michael Moore and Penguin documentaries are not the norm. I don't really care about either of these two movies. At all. It makes no difference to me whether my local film house shows these movies or not.
*sigh*
Marketing makes me angry.
I understand that this is a marketing ploy, but really: can we really, honestly believe that film houses don't have the right to not show whatever movie they don't think will make them money? The freedom of speech has a lot more to do with the fact that you cannot be arrested for believing or saying anything. You are legally allowed to want someone to be dead and to tell that to anyone you want. That's fine, as long as you don't try to bring that about in any way. It's related to freedom of the press: you have the right to print (or broadcast) anything, and with that right comes the social responsibility to make sure that the difference between opinion and fact are clearly stated in your press release. Are you legally forbidden to lie in the paper or in the news? Well...kinda. You can sue for libel and slander, but the government cannot silence you.
As for movies, you can make a movie about whatever you want. You can even produce whatever movie you want. In fact, you can own a movie house and show whatever movie you want. But the owners of theaters don't have as lofty ideals as most directors and are usually driven by income. And documentaries have primarily played in indy houses for decades. The recent exception of the Michael Moore and Penguin documentaries are not the norm. I don't really care about either of these two movies. At all. It makes no difference to me whether my local film house shows these movies or not.
*sigh*
Marketing makes me angry.
# posted by Adam @ 1:43 PM 
