The Passion Movie - Question

Wed Mar 3 21:46:33 PST 2004

Michael,

that "ring" is not from me; as I have said all along, I am not suggesting banning anything; merely pointing out the potential double standards that are out there; If the "Passion" were not about Jesus, then it is arguable that objections to the scenes might indeed pass the "laugh" test; but in fact I agree with you that parents should be able to take their children to whatever movie they wish to see; I just wonder if all the parents taking their kids to the Passion would feel the same way about other movies.  I recall a few movies that upset Christians that led to demands that the movies not be shown (I cannot recall the names of the films, but I am sure the movie buffs out there will know them); and I can easily imagine most of what is in the passion being offered as parody and mockery (perhaps with some nudity thrown in) by some film makers.  Imagine  the "agnostic" version of the passion; will all the people cheering on the passion be defending the right of partents to take their kids to that film.  There is an awful lot of over the top "passion" being thrown around here, while some of us are merely trying to see what the standards are in our society. 

Paul Finkelman

Quoting Michael MASINTER <masinter at nova.edu>:

> I assumed that the movie is not obscene and that that was
> sufficiently
> obvious as to require no qualifying comment; as the many posts
> in a
> related thread have suggested, the contrary argument wouldn't
> pass the
> laugh test.
> 
> Last time I looked, Ferber authorized the state to impose
> criminal
> liability on those who disseminate child pornography, defined
> in terms
> that have no conceivable relevance to the Passion; the
> Ashcrofts I know
> (there are quite a few now) involve governmental regulation of
> conduct by
> third parties targeting minors, not parental decisionmaking on
> their
> behalf.
> 
> There is the ring of "free speech for me, but not for thee"
> about this
> discussion.  Under what view of the first amendment can the
> state even
> plausibly forbid parents from showing this film to their
> children?  
> 
> Michael R. Masinter			3305 College Avenue
> Nova Southeastern University		Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314
> Shepard Broad Law Center		(954) 262-6151
> masinter at nova.edu			Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel
> 
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu wrote:
> 
> > Michael, last time I looked (which was this morning when I
> taught
> > Ferber and Ashcorft) the state often tells parents they
> cannot show
> > some movies to children and certainly would allow the arrest
> of people
> > who show some movies to anyone under 18.
> > 
> > Quoting Michael MASINTER <masinter at nova.edu>:
> > 
> > > This seems pretty easy; we entrust parents, not the state,
> to
> > > decide what
> > > is and is not appropriate for their children to view. 
> Were
> > > this issue to
> > > surface here (it won't), I am confidant that our ACLU
> > > affiliate would be
> > > eager to represent the parents.  
> > > 
> > > At least under the federal rules of evidence,
> psychologists
> > > who think the
> > > movie would be traumatic (or harmless) would not likely
> > > survive a Daubert
> > > challenge; this kind of opinion is an example of what
> gives BS
> > > such a bad
> > > name. 
> > > 
> > > Michael R. Masinter			3305 College Avenue
> > > Nova Southeastern University		Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314
> > > Shepard Broad Law Center		(954) 262-6151
> > > masinter at nova.edu			Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Lynne wrote:
> > > 
> > > > >From what I have read--and I have not seen the film,
> nor do
> > > I intend
> > > > to--many parents are taking relatively young--10 or
> > > younger--children to see
> > > > the film. (In Las vegas, some parents had a 5 year old
> with
> > > them, and I
> > > > think a 3 year old) The film is very violent, and
> involves
> > > the killing of ,
> > > > well, Christ.  A number of psychologists have noted
> that
> > > this could be
> > > > extremely traumatic for children, more than, say,
> seeing
> > > Bambi's mother get
> > > > shot or Nemo's mother being killed. An article here did
> note
> > > that some
> > > > children seemed very upset after the movie.
> > > >      Could a prosecutor prosecute a parent for abuse or
> > > neglect for bringing
> > > > a small child?  Could a theater be prosecuted for
> admitting
> > > young children,
> > > > even if parents are there?  Or, more likely, could
> someone
> > > get an injunction
> > > > against admitting small children, though they are
> > > accompanied by their
> > > > parents?
> > > > 
> > > > Prof. Lynne Henderson
> > > > Boyd School of Law--UNLV
> > > > 4505 Maryland Pkwy
> > > > Box 451003
> > > > Las Vegas, NV  89154
> > > > 702-895-2625
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get
> password,
> > > see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get
> password,
> > > see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Paul Finkelman
> > Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
> > Univ. of Tulsa College of Law
> > 2120 East 4th Place
> > Tulsa OK  74104-3189
> > 
> > Phone: 918-631-3706
> > Fax:    918-631-2194
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
Univ. of Tulsa College of Law
2120 East 4th Place
Tulsa OK  74104-3189

Phone: 918-631-3706
Fax:    918-631-2194