This isn’t a call for censorship, but for responsibility. You see about a year ago, an Islamofascist idiot killed two of our airmen, and two Americans helped to apprehend their killer and there have been developments in the case:
Germany's government presented the nation's highest civilian award Monday to two Americans who helped apprehend an Islamic extremist after he attacked a U.S. Air Force bus last year and killed two airmen.
Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich awarded the Federal Cross of Merit to U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Trevor Brewer and civilian airport employee Lamar Conner, both of whom chased the suspect until police could apprehend him, saying their deeds "were an example for all of us."
Arid Uka, a 21-year-old Kosovo Albanian, is currently on trial for the March 2 slayings and has admitted to the charges. He faces up to life in prison, and a verdict and sentence are expected Thursday.
And what motivated the attacks? Well, let’s hear from the Islamofascist himself:
Uka gave a teary confession as his Frankfurt state court trial opened in August, saying that the night before the attack he had seen a video on Facebook that purported to show American soldiers raping a teenage Muslim girl. It turned out to be a scene from the 2007 Brian De Palma anti-war film "Redacted," taken out of context.
Uka told the court the video prompted him to do anything possible to prevent American soldiers from going to Afghanistan.
And I will add this, too. I am sure there is hardly a liberal alive who would advocate censoring this movie and I would agree, but here’s the thing. It’s also corporate speech—so according to the liberal view, the Supreme Court should have ruled that corporations have no expressive rights and thus we could have censored that movie freely, right? Just like Hillary: The Movie, right?
Or do you think maybe the Supreme Court was right to say that the First Amendment applies to even corporate speech?
Hat tip: Daily Caller.
------------------------
It's not corporate speech. Just because entertainment corporations are involved in the distribution of the film, or even the financing of production, does not mean THEY are speaking. That would be like saying that this company engages in corporate speech every time its product is used.
ReplyDeleteHere's a theory: maybe "Redacted" was the "speech" of the author and director, not the corporation which helped produce and distribute it. In fact, we know this to be true, because a little research will tell you that the money behind the film came largely from Mark Rubin of Magnolia Pictures who, rather than being the "liberal" you envision, is actually an Ayn Rand-loving independent libertarian.
Also, you'll often find on movie credits a disclaimer which states that the views presented in the movie don't necessarily reflect that of the movie production company or distributor. I have no way of knowing if such a disclaimer appeared in "Redacted", but it wouldn't surprise me.
So let's stop perpetuating the myth that Hollywood movies are the "speech" of the production or distribution companies. Typically, entertainment corporations will finance movies for the profit (or, expected profit), not because of any particular "message".
Ken
ReplyDelete> It's not corporate speech.
This is a cheesy game with you. If you like the speech, you pretend it is not corporate speech. If you don't it suddenly is.
The fact is a movie doesn't come into existence by itself. It takes the cooperation of people, and they are frequently organized into companies. for instance, here's a list of the companies involved in redacted. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0937237/companycredits
> Also, you'll often find on movie credits a disclaimer which states that the views presented in the movie don't necessarily reflect that of the movie production company or distributor.
So because they are indiscriminate in what they say it is not corporate speech?
They can disclaim all they want, but this movie is the creation of the various corporations involved and it is their speech. Tough on them.
You cannot have your cake and eat it, Ken.
> So let's stop perpetuating the myth that Hollywood movies are the "speech" of the production or distribution companies.
Not even of the production companies? Even though they "produce" the expression in question?
>> They can disclaim all they want, but this movie is the creation of the various corporations involved and it is their speech.
ReplyDeleteThat's ridiculous. Just utterly ridiculous. If I contract with CafePress to print/manufacture a T-shirt that reads "F*ck Bush", CafePress, Inc. isn't voicing its opinion about Bush. Neither is the company that produces the ink on the T-shirt. Or the cotton farmer that provides the cotton from which the T-shirt is made.
Just because a movie "doesn't come into existence by itself" doesn't mean that EVERYONE involved in its production agrees with the film's message. Even the production companies.
By that logic, Rupert Murdoch supports the pro-environmentalist message of Avatar (a 21st Century Fox production). And he no more believes in that than Anthony Hopkins (who "produced speech" as Hannibal Lector) likes to eat brains with a fine Chianti.
Ken
ReplyDeleteWhat is ridiculous is claiming that the company that produces the speech is not the one speaking. Take for instance, the movie Hardball.
Never heard of it? Yeah, neither did I. But it was a movie starring Keanu Reeves as a little league coach. And it was “inspired by actual events.”
And it was the subject of a lawsuit. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3646680402603178633&q=defamation+paramount&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47
The caption is Muzikowski v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, Sfx Tollin Robbins Incorporated, and Fireworks Pictures. Oddly, the director and writers were not named as defendants.
And what is the case about? Defamation. Apparently Muzikowski claims it is based on his life, but all the changes were unflattering, so it is defamation.
So when there is an accusation of wrongful speech, defamation, the law treats the production companies, i.e. Paramount et al as the speakers.
>> The caption is Muzikowski v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, Sfx Tollin Robbins Incorporated, and Fireworks Pictures. Oddly, the director and writers were not named as defendants.
ReplyDelete*Facepalm*
Of course not. In a typical movie production, upon closing of shooting (if not before), the production company typically contracts with the "artists" (writers, directors, actors, etc.) and assumes the liability for all matters relating to the film (whether it be copyright infringement, defamation, etc.). It's only the contractual assumption of LIABILITY that turns the production company into the properly named defendant. "The law" doesn't do that.
I'm not saying that's always the case. There are situations where a corporation is formed with the intent to "get out a message". And writers are hired to articulate that message. The Hillary movie was probably that way.
But that's not how typical Hollywood works. Typically, a production company will buy screenplays from writers (which are "already spoken") and produce them, in the course of which they assume, contractually, the liabilities that might arise with respect to those screenplays.
Ken
ReplyDeleteOkay, challenge time.
Name one case where the courts held that the production company was determined as a matter of law not to be responsible for what they are PRODUCING.
Name one instance where an author was sued for defamation for writing a book, but the courts held as a matter of law that the publisher cannot.
This is how corporations speak. They hire people to form the content for them. But its ultimately up to them to approve. The director might or screenwriter might have great freedom in what to say, but it is still their speech. Their necks on the line.
Do you really think that a campaign commercial produced by Romney for America (to make up a name that probably does exist) can pretend it is not speaking because it had a screenwriter or a director?
Ken
ReplyDeleteBtw, another example: NYT v. Sullivan. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10183527771703896207&q=new+york+times+v.+sullivan&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47
Read the facts. The NYT and its reporters didn't "say" anything about Sullivan. Instead they accepted an advertisement which as allegedly libelous. But the NYT was still held to account for the alleged libel. Yes, they won but not on the theory that they were not the speakers, but instead on the theory that it didn't meet the malice standard.
And indeed if you read the facts in the alabama S.C. version of the case, you see that they routinely check the truthfulness of such ads--because they know they could be sued for them. They were held to be the speaker and liable for their libel in Alabama, and the U.S. S.C. overturned it on other grounds.
You're just plain wrong about this.
"Also, you'll often find on movie credits a disclaimer which states that the views presented in the movie don't necessarily reflect that of the movie production company or distributor. I have no way of knowing if such a disclaimer appeared in "Redacted", but it wouldn't surprise me."
ReplyDeleteI like this rule. Have no clue about the legal issue, but I recall Citizens United was about a movie criticizing a politician. Or rather, a group advertising that movie's criticisms at a time when Mccain-Feingold said that was a no-no for corporations.
See, that rule is really overbroad if it's possible for corporations to throw out a disclaimer 'this movie doesn't necessarily represent the company line'.
I think this shows that Citizens United was correct about the BCRA's overbroad restriction on speech.
Anyway, it's unfortunate someone reacted to this movie this way. It's also difficult for many politically passionate people to present their fictionalized take on the world, especially the uglier more violent aspects of the world, without their biases having some very powerful ramifications in the fictional world.
It seems like an easy trap to fall into.
Dustin
ReplyDelete> See, that rule is really overbroad if it's possible for corporations to throw out a disclaimer 'this movie doesn't necessarily represent the company line'.
I would say not overly broad so much as pointless.
Or more in the language of the court, it is underinclusive, which i don't think is considered part of overbreadth analysis.
Well yeah, that too. If there is a clause that gives corporations free speech because it allows an individual's free speech to be recognized even though they are working through a corporation... then we were all kinda arguing over pointless abstractions (which is my opinion). Free speech should be protected, as a rule, unless there's a really, really good reason for it not to be, and 'the concept of the entity making the speech is not a human being' is not a very good reason.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, interesting discussion.
What exactly is your point, Ken? That in fact the distribution company was not engaged in protected speech when it distributed Redacted? And therefore the government may prevent it, and the first amendment does not protect them?! Is that what you're saying? If not that, then what?
ReplyDeleteAlso, are you really saying that Citizens United was not engaged in speech when it produced Hillary: The Movie?! That it would just as readily have produced any other movie, and that's why the government was within its rights in preventing it? Or what?
It's pretty obvious that Citizens United was in fact engaged in speech; the only question before the Court was whether its right to engage in speech is protected. If it's not protected, as you claim, then a fortiori the movie companies involved in producing and distributing Redacted (including Magnolia Pictures, by the way) must also not be protected, and therefore the film may be censored. As for the rights of the writer and producer, what about the rights of the writer and producer of Hillary: The Movie? If those weren't infringed by the government's attempt to prevent Citizens United from distributing it, then the rights of Redacted's writer and producer wouldn't be infringed if the government were to prevent it from being distributed.