It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Fahrenheit' Banned in Iowa Theaters for Inciting Terrorism...

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   
While I think they have the right to show anything they want in their own theatre, I think it should be shown so everyone can decide on their own what the film offers. Im a republican, NOT RIGHT WINGED SO DROP IT, I will see the film for what it is, a film, entertainment, and maybe I will learn something, but Im gonna let the hype wear off first.

SIDE NOTE: Way to go Zero, you steriotyped an entire state, you should be proud of yourself. Way to keep an open mind.


EDIT for speeling


[edit on 7/7/2004 by zsandmann]




posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by aTwistofReality

Personally I will wait until it comes out on video.


Ah, that is a subject for another thread.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I was just kidding. I have a potato farming friend from IOWA. I use to go out there every few summers. I had a good time there but let me tell you something....When you are in the middle of Iowa you are in the middle of nowhere. The population per square mile was like 48 back then. I doubt that it has changed much. hehe



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Ok, let me say that I am a Moore supporter, not because of his message, but because of his ability to say whatever he feels he needs to say. I did see the movie, and appreciated it as a film, not necesarrily for it's content, but because it was put together in a way that makes it a good film. I am an aspiring film-maker, and the movie was a good movie, whether or not the content is valid.

Now that I have gotten this out of the way, I will say this: the owner of this theater has EVERY RIGHT not to show a movie he does not agree with. No one's rights are being trampled on here. If you do not agree with what he has done, go to Iowa and protest. That is your right, not showing the movie is his right.

Let's stop forgetting what America is about, and stop trying to force others to do what we think they should do. Our founding fathers didn't have it perfect, but they had a lot of good ideas and we should do our best to try and keep up what they started.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Is it really a good thing for 1 president of a company (R.L. Fridley, the president of the Des-Moines-based Fridley Theatres) to decide for the entire population of Iowa AND Nebraska what movies they should and should not watch?

Anyway the guy must be feeling some heat from his decision...

www.fridleytheatres.com...

Since our decision to not play “FAHRENHEIT 9/11" we have been deluged with e-mail, telephone calls and letters. ..About 50% praising us for our position and about 50% damning us for our position.

It has always been and will continue to be our policy to refuse to play what we feel are propaganda films no matter the source. It was and is our feeling that “FAHRENHEIT 9/11" falls into that category.

Having said that, we do not infer that Michael Moore has no right to make his film and have it distributed. In fact if he or anyone in our nation were ever denied that right, we would be on the front line defending his or her right to make and distribute his or her film. Mr. Moore’s and every film- maker’s right to make and distribute a film is no different than ours. The right to decide whether to play or not play that film-maker’s film. Mr. Moore has the right to have his message just as we have the right to choose not to be his messenger.

In view of the tremendous amount of strong feelings pro and con we have received, we urge both those who praise and those who damn our decision, to go see Mr. Moore’s film and decide for themselves.

Please allow this to be our final comment on this matter,

Robert L. Fridley



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   
That press release didn't mention terrorism even once. Wasn't that why he wouldn't show the movie?



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Banshee
www.chron.com...

Wow.
A privately owned company decides not to show a movie and we don't live in a free country anymore?
I can tell you you're not allowed to come over my house and watch any Disney movies if I want, and that has nothing to do with a "free country."

Get it?

He owns 34 theaters in IA & NE.
Those areas are covered by the cinema giants like AMC & GCC. Never fear, nobody's rights are being trampled on here....
except maybe the private buisiness owner who's getting lambasted for choosing which films to show at the theaters he owns.



why would a movie theater owner care about inciting terrorism???

did you think about that???




posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   
In my view this all comes down to business (i.e. private rights) vs. constitutional rights. Which should take precedence?

Also, this guy is not a good business man. He is giving up an economic opportunity (a full theater of the choir, the bashers and the curious) by imposing on his community (read captive clients) his own personal views.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
In my view this all comes down to business (i.e. private rights) vs. constitutional rights. Which should take precedence?

Also, this guy is not a good business man. He is giving up an economic opportunity (a full theater of the choir, the bashers and the curious) by imposing on his community (read captive clients) his own personal views.

The Constitution is in place to protect our individual rights, they are not in opposition to each other!

Good businessman or not, the owner of these movie theaters is free to decide what he will and will not play at them. It would be a violation of his rights, if the government had stepped in to prohibit him from showing the movies against his will.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   
The constitution protects your rights from government action not from private individuals or other "legal" persons. So the excercise of a private right can often come into conflict with constitutional rights. Your right to hear and see Moore's 'art' is trampled upon when people who control the means of dissemination restrict it. In today's mass media culture this kind of film qualifies as public discourse in my opinion. If this theater owner was joined by allother theater owners I would certainly cry foul as loud as I could.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
He has every right not to show it, But you also have the right to Never go to his Theater again.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
The constitution protects your rights from government action not from private individuals or other "legal" persons. So the excercise of a private right can often come into conflict with constitutional rights. Your right to hear and see Moore's 'art' is trampled upon when people who control the means of dissemination restrict it. In today's mass media culture this kind of film qualifies as public discourse in my opinion. If this theater owner was joined by allother theater owners I would certainly cry foul as loud as I could.

An individual's right to see the movie is in no way "trampled on" by a movie theatre owner's decision not to show it. It may be less convenient for the individual to see the movie, because they can't go to a local theatre, but they are not being prevented from going elsewhere to see it. No one has said that the movie-going public is FORBIDDEN from seeing the movie, they just will not be able to see it in theatres owned by this particular businessman. The patrons of these theatres also have the right to boycott the theatres, if they are really upset.

Nobody's rights have been infringed upon because this idiot has chosen to buy into Bush's b.s.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Jezebel:


I agree that claiming infringment of constitutional or personal rights is a stretch in this case. Also I do support his decision as bad as it is.

It's just that this kind of person, making this kind of decision, based on who knows what, does not sit well with me. Know what I mean?



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
Jezebel:


I agree that claiming infringment of constitutional or personal rights is a stretch in this case. Also I do support his decision as bad as it is.

It's just that this kind of person, making this kind of decision, based on who knows what, does not sit well with me. Know what I mean?


Yeah, I know what you mean. Some people just beg to be bitch-slapped until they wake up, but it's like Thomas Jefferson said,
"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for
himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their
case may, by change of circumstances, become his own..." -- to Benjamin Rush, 1803.

Even when it comes to dealing with people like this theatre owner, who have obviously forgotten this principle. It's important that we live by example and defend their rights to be dolts, if for no other reason, than the fact that the shoe may one day be on the other foot, and we cannot expect anyone to give credence to a hypocrite.
Maybe, just maybe, by our doing so, they will remember that the preservation of their own freedom is contingent upon the preservation of everyone else's freedoms and decide to come to our defense, should the need arise.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Thanks for that bit of wisdom Jezebel.

You made my personal tutor list with that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join