Comments:Banned film 'The Profit' appears on Web
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Comments edit
Comments, thoughts, opinions? Cirt - (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
WIN edit
FUCK YEA SEAKING!
why it banned? edit
what happen to our freedom of speech? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.16.129 (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- We never had freedom of speech --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 07:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not since Bush became president anyway --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 07:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was banned because the Church of Scientology filed a lawsuit saying that it was libel against them, even tho the film never mentions scientology, and the church of scientology denies that it is about them to this date. Rekov - (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I thought that was something that only happened in England. Geez. Fephisto - (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- That is fucked up. They deny its about them but they sue for libel over it, what a load of shit.
- Whenever I think us Brits have stupid systems (Scotland, England, Ireland + Wales all have seperate rules with thier own ups and downs), I remind myself that, unlike the US, at least they almost always eventualy get to the right descicion, if only after three years too much process... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- That makes me mad. I'm downloading it right now to see why Scientology had it banned. --Cupivistine Noscere? - (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to distribute this film to everyone only because they tried to have it banned. No media should be legally banned. -Eetaq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.172.5 (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- That makes me mad. I'm downloading it right now to see why Scientology had it banned. --Cupivistine Noscere? - (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Whenever I think us Brits have stupid systems (Scotland, England, Ireland + Wales all have seperate rules with thier own ups and downs), I remind myself that, unlike the US, at least they almost always eventualy get to the right descicion, if only after three years too much process... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was banned because the Church of Scientology filed a lawsuit saying that it was libel against them, even tho the film never mentions scientology, and the church of scientology denies that it is about them to this date. Rekov - (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not since Bush became president anyway --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 07:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Anonymous101, do you have anything to prove Bush is impeding freedom of speech? If you said something like that in a country, say Cuba, you would probably be imprisoned right now. Your freedom doesn't seem to be impeded. Also, remember that Bush, in his attempt at "compassionate conservatism", left many Clinton leftovers in the lower courts alone. (168.28.43.202 18:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC))
- Prior to the election of the current commander in chief you didn't have "free speech zones" where those protesting were kept away from events to avoid making politicians look bad. Sure, you have free speech - just not on your own terms. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting that the court opinion stated that they were placing an injunction because "...an average person viewing the film entitled The Profit could perceive that it is a parody of the Church of Scientology". Interesting because after Irving Berlin et al. v. E.C. Publications, Inc., parody became protected speech under the First Amendment. --RoninBK - (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Scientology edit
What were Scientology thinking in getting it banned, now everyone wants to see it. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 09:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's Scientology standard operating procedure, attempt to silence opposition by suing the pants off of it. I'm surprised no one has brought up charges of barratry yet --RoninBK - (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
So say there is a film that bass Christianity it can still be play, like the atheist film saying Jesus was a evil child. But CoS get pissy over a film that never mention them? That American for you. And I'm joining the army <.< some freedom of speech —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.16.129 (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)