After seeing all the uproar over an idiot who made a bad film, a lot of people seem to be flirting with the idea the government should do something about it. Now, don't get me wrong. I've said it before: The film is probably horrendous. Heinous, even. Offensive? Sure. Whatever. I haven't seen it, and I have no intention of seeing it. (If people have yet to get me to see Pulp Fiction, I'm pretty sure I'm going to be able to resist the allure of Stupid Idea We Had While On Drugs or whatever it is called.)
The point being, some people have been saying that the film maker is an unsympathetic person. This is being used as a reason why the government should be heavy handed with him. Here's the funny thing about rights: We wrote them down specifically to protect unsympathetic people. I had a thought I shared with my brother once; I said that it must suck to be a lawyer and get some really obviously evil guy off on a technicality because of a warrant or some other small nitpicked detail.
I could see it going something like: "Honestly, yes. Jim may have eaten his own son's brains out of his wife's skull. But, the prosecution failed to deliver certain documents during discovery and tampered with the jury pool," blah, blah, blah, Lifetime movie of the year. It is the tough cases where our commitment to free speech is tested the most, or really, any ideal.
The guy may be a complete jerk; I don't know. But, people are allowed to be jackasses in America. I don't like that people are, in fact, jackasses in America. I would rather, like cats, that there be no jackasses in America. That is not in the cards. Polite society can shun jackasses (and should.) The government, though, has no place in flexing muscles to shame and chill speech.
----
P.S.,
Did you know there is a Final Fantasy fighting game? I... I have to add something to my games to play list.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Are you commenting? Thank you! Please be nice; I'm lazy and would hate to actually have to moderate things.