Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hindu child beaten by missionary scho
No one said it was fool proof. If the people are dumb enough to hate Christian organizations because of the disclaimer, then they are dumb enough to believe that the movie is real. Which still a lot of idiots do. Frankly, it just looks like these people are looking for any reason to hate another group. Glad I don't live there.
Like the Da Vinci Code. Sheesh! AnSheeshm!
Originally posted by aneeshm
It is still free speech you are restricting. If I make a movie, and at the most emotive and moving moment, you put a big banner there covering the whole screen and telling you that this movie is not real, it RUINS the fun!
It was a blatant, in-your-face display of power. Had they been sensible, they would have included it at the beginning, not at the climactic moment. It was damn deliberate, and it succeeded in spoiling the movie. It ALSO succeeded in making people hate these stupid organisations.
It is still free speech you are restricting. If I make a movie, and at the most emotive and moving moment, you put a big banner there covering the whole screen and telling you that this movie is not real, it RUINS the fun!
It was a blatant, in-your-face display of power. Had they been sensible, they would have included it at the beginning, not at the climactic moment. It was damn deliberate, and it succeeded in spoiling the movie. It ALSO succeeded in making people hate these stupid organisations.
As I said, completely and totally free expression, with the limit that you can't libel or slander someone still alive, or make historical movies which are inaccurate but present themselves as fact (though that opens up another can of worms, but this can be solved by a simple disclaimer at the beginning).
Comment