Evan Almighty (The Movie)

Free speech isn't subject to making "political points" or expressing views that fit some preconceived filter -- it's free speech. My point is precisely that whether or not the depicted content is illegal should be absolutely irrelevant -- good luck showing a murder or speeding ticket under such standards!

"Torture porn" would also describe The Passion, and yes it most assuredly should be allowed to freely exist, though I dislike that genre myself. If you can figure out how to determine an animal's proper consent, then you can film all the bestiality in the world, but good luck with that. As for child actors in questionable situations, I haven't seen the films you mention so I can't comment on them specifically. Properly shot, I have no problem with allowing the existence of such content, but whether parents should be allowed to make that decision is certainly a matter worth debating, given the number of foolish parents out there today.

 

I agree, free speech is about free speech.

The Passion was not what I would define as "torture porn" as the torture and porn were not mixed. The very end of the film contained pornography and it was not in a torture situation (although most of the main actresses were involved with pornography outside of the Passion though, only Monica Belucci(sp?) was involved in a rape scene that could possibly be considered torture porn). Having said that, the Passion of the Christ should have been banned for being obscene.

 

Ah, see I interpret free speech to be freedom of expression.

Since I did not watch The Passion, I cannot disagree, though we obviously differ in our treatment of obscenity.

 

If the amendment read something about freedom of expression then I might side with you legally, though I would remain opposed according to my religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." - 1st Amendment US Constitution​

Folks should be able to speak whatever is on their mind. They should be able to express (notice too that, according to Webster's, the first 3 definitions of "expression" refer to rhetoric) only that which is not obscene.

I watched it twice when I was Catholic-light, and thought it was swell at the time.

You are correct that we have different obscenity standards. This is why this issue is difficult and I understand I'm in the minority on this one. However, most obscenity standards typically apply to what is considered to be obscene by the society of that time. Thus, the more obscene society gets, the more obscene moving images get and the more obscene moving images get, the more obscene society gets. We thus go from Charlie Chaplin, to Lucy and Ricky not sleeping in the same bed, to Genie not showing her belly button, to Temptation Island. It's just a subtle degradation to Hell in our amusements and few desire to take a stand because they don't want to censor this material, as though censorship is the worst thing in the world. While an infringement of speech is offensive to a free society, protecting that society from wretched imagery is both a public health issue and a matter for Christians to take a Biblical stand on.

 

Ah, but this is a normative question, so the Constitution is irrelevant (though I'd debate the point if it were).

Yes, legally obscenity has been related to "community standards", so you're quite right there, but I certainly don't see it as a public health issue. I absolutely agree that Christians should take stands against such movies, but I feel that should be done through social pressure, not legislation.

 

The Constitution is hardly irrelevant, it says "speech" you want to change it to "expression".

It's completely a public health issue. Young children are getting knocked up and afflicted with veneral diseases. Men are getting AIDS 'cuz they're turning to the unnatural as the media desensitizes and condones abominable "brokeback" behavior. Glorification of drugs, glorification of violence, demeaning of the family and strong male leadership. When you place these evil communications before the eyes and minds of people, it corrupts their manners and manipulates their world view to varying degrees.

I will return to the point that it has historically been addressed via legislation and continues to be, the only change is the standards for enforcement continue to degrade.

 

No, I would want to follow the Supreme Court's interpretation of "speech" to include non-verbal expression.

But that's irrelevant to our discussion here, since the issue isn't whether it's legal to censor them, but rather whether it's a good idea to censor them.

It's a free country. If one feels that something is an "evil communication", then one is under no obligation to watch it. The failure here is a direct result of poor parenting, particularly in their failure to teach discernment, critical analysis, self-control, etc.

I agree entirely -- I just think that they were historically wrong to do so.