The moral high ground to alter movies

[Towen7]

And most importantly ...

THIS
IS
COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT

Nobody is taking the movie away from anyone. To use your book analogy, they're just choosing to read the book and thumb past the pages they don't like. They aren't asking YOU to.

Make the argument about artistic integrity all you want but I'm not buying it. This is 100% about you wanting to restrict people's freedom based solely on their religious beliefs. You're still but-hurt because you couldn't watch porn back in the day. News flash ... your side won. I bet you've watched more porn this week than that store would have sold in a month. You make your real feelings clear when you say that you'd prefer that the people offended by a book choose to not have their kids read it and not make the school stop teaching from it. Well, That's exactly what this company is doing for "those people". They are helping them not see the material they may find offensive. Not taking it out of the library. So ... "those people" do exactly what you ask and your still not happy.

Your words betray your real feelings.

 

[Flint]

I should also point out, if anyone threatens to kill someone else, that is a crime and there are laws to punish anyone who would make such a threat.

 

[Zing]

(happy Zing?)

Very.

Thank you.

 

[MatthewB]

Flint they didn't threaten my friends father with death they threatened to burn his clinic to the ground. When his father told me the story decades ago I was gob smacked but my best friend said they still visit his clinic from time to time to reassure him that they weren't kidding. Mormons are very big in Mesa (second only to Utah) and we've all seen what Mormons have done to Utah.

 

[Flint]

While not as grievous an offense, threats to do harm are against the law if they are legit. My point is that the law is designed to protect people from doing things like that, so bringing up a local group making threats in a conversation about constitutional rights and censorship doesn't bolster your argument.

We have a right to free speech, which is what you are arguing about when it comes to entertainment. That right is for you to say, write, or project your ideas as you see fit with very little restriction from the government. There are some limitations, as in the famous pornography case where one of the justices stated in essence that he has trouble writing a definition of pornography, but he knows it when he sees it. But your right is not to have easy access to any entertainment you want wherever you live. Your right is that if it is available where you live and others can access it, no one can single you out and restrict you from getting it. If the stuff you want isn't available in your area for any reason, other than government bans (that's what your are protected from), then that's just too bad.

Citizens can protest entertainment, they can boycott it, they can email, call, and write letters to the distributors to stop offering it in your area, and theater/store owners can choose not to bring it into your area. Those things are allowed by the constitution. But if the government writes a rule to prevent you from getting it, there are very few cases where that is allowed. One way it is allowed is commonly used - putting an X-Rated store right next to a elementary school or church. That is usually not allowed and currently the right to free speech does not prevent the government from making those rules - as long as there is a reasonable location for those sorts of businesses elsewhere in the community.

But, this video editing business... seriously, I still don't see how it can survive a court case against it for copyright infringement.

 

[MatthewB]

I agree Flint I don't think it will survive in court. It hasn't before I don't think it will now. VidAngels stance is that they are actually selling the title then the buyer can edit it then sell the title back to the company minus two dollars. It's an interesting twist as VidAngels stance is the buyer is doing the editing and can do with it what they will since they bought the title. I think VidAngel will have issues with allowing software to be used to alter the digital stream of the movie. It's going to be an interesting case.