Thanks. That's what I was looking for. Carry on.
Disney fires James Gunn from "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3"
- Thread starter Lawrence B
- Start date
- Status
It's not actually the First Amendment that's limiting speech in such cases, but rather the affirmation of other rights that are more important than simply allowing any and all forms of expression. The First Amendment itself specifically prohibits no speech. Other rights and compelling interests that limit and trump First Amendment freedom of expression are affirmed elsewhere in the Constitution, either in other parts of the First Amendment besides the part affirming freedom of speech (for example in the part affirming freedom of religion*) or in other Amendments and Articles of the Constitution altogether, and elsewhere in US law and court decisions.
* - That's actually only a theoretical suggestion, as I'm aware of no limitation to free speech based in fact on the freedom of religion.
If you're advocating for unfettered free speech I'd suggest it's actually you who doesn't understand it. No society in history has ever enshrined or strove for such a freedom and the US is no exception, nor should it be. Freedom of Speech has in every instance had limitations and rightly so.
Are you seriously comparing Hot Shots gentle satire on the Hollywood glorification of warfare within the context of a piece of entertainment with Gunns pointless and singularly vulgar tweets existing outside of a creative context and serving no purpose other than to shock for it's own sake?
Clue, I'd allow Hot Shots to play in the communal areas of my ward if patients requested it. I wouldn't allow those tweets to be read out under any circumstances. If you genuinely see an equivalence I can only imagine it must be an interesting world you live in.
I don't think many victims of cannibalism would be too concerned about Monty Python.
Leaving aside that real world structural cannibalism is usually victimless, the deceased being family members being honoured as part of the grieving process, as an abberrant behaviour I'd be more concerned about the offenders being exposed to graphic material.
Which it wasn't.
True, I could make the case it was a product of it's time but frankly no, that is offensive but crucially not, I suspect, traumatic, unlike the potential impact of Gunn's tweets. As a straight man, however, I'm not in a position to really judge the level of that offence, which is precisely the point I was making by drawing attention to the difference between the perspectives of an abusee and a non abusee.
Again, potentially offensive, but not traumatic. That's a whole lot of mileage in between. False equivalency again.
Not really, it's an imagined slippery slope which falsely supposes an existing culture and framework of unfettered freedom of speech being curtailed. No such culture or framework exist, nor have they ever existed. There are and have always been sensible restrictions in place and that is neither new nor dangerous in and of itself. You are imagining your position to be defending something which simply does not exist.
Hyperbole much?
I know, but the point stands that here's no absolute guarantee of FoS in the US, any more than in any other country. The First Amendment doesn't restrict FoS, it simply places limitations on it's own jurisdiction to protect it under prescribes conditions.
The end result in either case is my point stands, FoS is conditional not absolute.
That is correct, even in the US.
I'm just letting you know, I'm not continuing debating you on this.
I made it clear from my first statement that I didn't want to get drawn into a lengthy, tedious and time-consuming debate that should be about principles but eventually become only about who is right. I could go on arguing with you guys, going over your posts, I find several points open for me to attack. But I don't want to, I didn't want this in the first place, so I'm stopping this here.
Make me the bad guy if you absolutely need to. I've said my piece, I stand by each and every word, people can read it, agree or disagree with it, or even ignore it. But I'm out.
Agreed
That is misleading.
Can you elaborate on how it's misleading?
Okay. It's just a feeling of equalising I get from it (the comment). I'm not so much picking on the logic or word accuracy. I do understand there are no guarantees of freedom of speech from one country to the next and the US complies with that in a comparison. However the USA has more latitude for freedom of speech than say a country in the Middle East, maybe less than somewhere else. The 'guarantees' such that they are for freedom of speech in the US, though not all inclusive, are not the same as other governments/Nations.
I still think the whole free speech issue is still iffy when it comes to the internet because I still don't think society has fully embraced one idea as to what the internet is. People can see it as being to much of a intrusion into people's personal lives which means it's sort of like big brother watching over everybody and judging everyone which people don't like. I think people still also have the view that if you don't like what someone is saying, just move on and ignore it or tell the person you don't like what you said but their is suppose to be limits to just how far you go in trying to express that anger. It's one thing to tell them what they say is wrong or even calling them a asshole. But trying to get someone fired just because they personally don't like it and in many case don't even know the subtext or all the facts seems one step to far. How many people outraged over Gunn ever read behind the headline or even know he apoligized or anything. How many people actually take time to make a informed opinion before giving their opinion?
Jason
Jason
For what it's worth, I didn't read there to be any false equivalence being drawn, for exactly the reason you state (that the point there was simply that there is no guarantee of completely unfettered speech anywhere, including the US).
I think this is the first time I have ever responded to a post of yours in this thread. And I asked a question.
I'm asking a question about principles. As a principle: should a privately held company have the right to decide what is and isn't on their platform?
Attack? What about just having a conversation? I was asking a legit question.
I literally have no interest in making you a "bad guy." I do disagree with your point--if I have understood it correctly--that privately held businesses should allow absolute freedom of speech.
Ok. Sure.
Agreed
About what? That privately held companies should HAVE to allow ALL speech? Why should they have to allow ALL speech? Should this board change it's policy and be forced to allow racial slurs?
The government may allow more freedom of speech, but, why should privately held platforms have to do the same thing?
The First Amendment protects us from the government, ie, we can't get arrest for saying things. It doesn't require companies to have to allow freedom of speech on social media platforms.
Gunn had said repeatedly that this would be the final story with the current team. That's not to say that further contracts couldn't be signed and future directors couldn't have done new stories with the same team. But it's clear that he was intending this to be the final chapter for this team, at least as far as his storytelling went.
Exactly. At some point RDJ's contract was done, and his complete story was basicly told (IM1-3), with some stuff in The Avengers. He signed a new contract, not for solo stuff, but Avengers movies and a few tidbits in other movies if need be.
The same could be said for GotG. Yes, this trllogy wraps up their actual story. Doesn't mean that, if the writers for Avengers 13 (
) wanted to use Rocket and Starlord, or Mantis and Drax, or the whole team, that that's forbidden somehow.
If they are going to bring in the original Guardians of the galaxy, then Marvel Boy is going to show up first in present Day... Ooo! And get the actress who played Laura from Logan to play Rancor.
Where on Earth did you go mentally to come up with this as a complaint?
My statement "There's no absolute guarantee of FoS in the US, no more than in any other country" is completely correct. There is no absolute guarantee in the US, there is no absolute guarantee in Saudi Arabia.
That there are differences worldwide in the degree of FoS and relative protections afforded has nothing whatsoever to do with that simple statement which referred literally and exclusively in terms of absolutes (or lack thereof).
RDJ has actually gone movie-to-movie with his contracts, beginning with Age of Ultron, negotiating a new deal for each individual film in which he appears. That's how he was able to extract more than $50 million for doing Civil War ($40 million base salary, plus points participation), and another $10 million for being in Spider-Man: Homecoming for like 12 minutes.
Ah, my bad. I thought he signed for a few movies again. But yeah, business-wise that was the better deal for him.
- Status