Excessive Censorship

AnyOldIron

AnyOldIron

Atheist Missionary
Two US cinema chains say they will not screen a controversial British film portraying the fictional assassination of President George W Bush.
Death of a President, which shows Mr Bush being shot dead, secured a US distribution deal last month.

A third major chain said it was unsure whether to show the mock documentary, which is due to open on 27 October.

The film, which has raised protests from conservatives in the US, will be shown on UK TV channel More4 on Monday.

Support

Regal Entertainment Group, which has more than 6,300 screens in 40 US states, said it would not show the film because of its subject matter.

Spokesman Dick Westerling said: "We do not feel it is appropriate to portray the future assassination of a president, therefore we do not intend to programme this film at any of our theatres."

Mr Westerling said Regal had received "numerous phone calls and e-mails" supporting the company.

Even if the film became a hit in other venues, Regal would stand by its decision, he added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5415666.stm

What a bunch of arseholes. Free speech, provided the speech conforms.
 
The CEO of regal is a right wing Christian activist. Unfortuntely, he also runs the UA chain.

Anytime anyone pays to see a movie at one of these places you are helping to fund censorship, and right wing political causes to which he donates big money.

I started more and more going to see movies at my local arts cinema. Which funds nobody except the two sweet and elderly owners. I imagine they will be playing this film.
 
It is Orwellian that they would control what the public see.

I'm sure they would use the argument that it is their company and they can do what they want, but when they have such a monopoly that excuse no longer plays out.
 
AnyOldIron said:
It is Orwellian that they would control what the public see.

I'm sure they would use the argument that it is their company and they can do what they want, but when they have such a monopoly that excuse no longer plays out.
Click to expand...
It would be if they were the government and there would be no other forum to watch the show. Neither are true, therefore this is a silly paper target...

Private companies can choose what they are going to show.
 
Damocles said:
It would be if they were the government and there would be no other forum to watch the show. Neither are true, therefore this is a silly paper target...

Private companies can choose what they are going to show.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

That is the GIANT difference between public and private. With private you have choice, with public you do not.
 
It would be if they were the government and there would be no other forum to watch the show. Neither are true, therefore this is a silly paper target...

Private companies can choose what they are going to show.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Exactly as I stated....

"I'm sure they would use the argument that it is their company and they can do what they want, but when they have such a monopoly that excuse no longer plays out."

If they didn't have such a dominant monopoly over what people see, you might have a point......
 
That is the GIANT difference between public and private. With private you have choice, with public you do not.

Not with the monopolistic nature of capitalism you don't... That's just free market fantasy...
 
"Banned in Boston" huh, now I will buy the DVD when it comes out, since I will not be able to see it in a theatre.
 
AnyOldIron said:
It would be if they were the government and there would be no other forum to watch the show. Neither are true, therefore this is a silly paper target...

Private companies can choose what they are going to show.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Exactly as I stated....

"I'm sure they would use the argument that it is their company and they can do what they want, but when they have such a monopoly that excuse no longer plays out."

If they didn't have such a dominant monopoly over what people see, you might have a point......
Click to expand...
You might have a point if they had a monopoly. This one theatre has a monopoly? Rubbish.
 
Damo Between the chains that have banned it, I can find no other options with 2 hours driving time of central KY to view the movie. Perhaps one of the campus cinemas will show it.
Not rubbish.
You are being a bit overly dismissive there.
 
You might have a point if they had a monopoly. This one theatre has a monopoly? Rubbish.

It would be if this were just one theatre. But it is the three largest chains, who between them can be said to have a monopoly.
 
Not particularly. It's all basically relative. I have no theaters that are less than 1 hour from my place. Most are an even longer trip. In order to watch movies that I want I often have to travel that kind of time. I do not see this as that restrictive. People often choose to live further than others from places like that. I do not believe it is overly restrictive.
 
In Lexington, KY or Tampa FL , yeah use the old people choose to live where they want. How many theatres in either one of those areas will be showing the movie ?
 
These three chains will prevent this being shown in 14,400 cinemas.

It is an orchestrated attempt to silence free speech by using monopolistic tendencies and the social freedom of property rights.

It is as bad as a government surpressing the film.
 
Except it isn't. It is hysteria response to pretend that it is. Such a film likely wouldn't release in the most popular theaters anyway and would have limited release in the smaller theaters. Pretending that this is going to make it so that those who want to see the film cannot is just pretense.
 
Except it isn't. It is hysteria response to pretend that it is. Such a film likely wouldn't release in the most popular theaters anyway and would have limited release in the smaller theaters. Pretending that this is going to make it so that those who want to see the film cannot is just pretense.

So, despite what the chain owners are actually stating (that they are orchestrating a campaign to not show the film) it isn't an orchestrated campaign but due to the film's size and stature? lol

This is cinema chain owners dictating what content will be seen in great swaithes of the US.

It is the personal opinion of a few men in priviledged positions dictating what information will be seen.

If only you could extend your phobia of governments you would see the totalitarian nature of capitalism. These people collect power through wealth and then exercise that power over others.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Except it isn't. It is hysteria response to pretend that it is. Such a film likely wouldn't release in the most popular theaters anyway and would have limited release in the smaller theaters. Pretending that this is going to make it so that those who want to see the film cannot is just pretense.

So, despite what the chain owners are actually stating (that they are orchestrating a campaign to not show the film) it isn't an orchestrated campaign but due to the film's size and stature? lol

This is cinema chain owners dictating what content will be seen in great swaithes of the US.

It is the personal opinion of a few men in priviledged positions dictating what information will be seen.

If only you could extend your phobia of governments you would see the totalitarian nature of capitalism. These people collect power through wealth and then exercise that power over others.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't censorship because there are other places to see the flick and it isn't the government working to keep you from the movie. This is getting repetitive and foolish. People will not be stopped from seeing the movie if they wish to and it is therefore not the "same thing" as censorship, it isn't even close.

Now I'd be agreeing with you if it actually was the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top