The Passion Movie - Question

Sat Mar 6 01:15:30 PST 2004

Are you saying that the exception for obscenity (or, for minors, 
indecency) has a more scientific basis?     
Daniel Hoffman

Michael MASINTER wrote:

>I am genuinely surprised to hear "social science," or at least "science"  
>mentioned in the same sentence as "trauma" and "child abuse;" recent
>history (false memory syndrome, increasingly exotic definitions of PTSD,
>dissociative disorder, borderline personality disorder) suggests that this
>is the kind of science that would make an astrologer blush.  See generally
>Richard J. McNally, Remembering Trauma (2003), collecting and contrasting
>claims of clinicians with scientific studies debunking them.  As it
>happens, the current New York Review of Books includes a review by
>Frederick Crews at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16951.  
>
>We live in one of the few countries in which the claim that exposing
>children to violent movies causes trauma would be taken seriously. The
>rest of the world is too busy dealing with children exposed to real
>violence.  Until very recently, close range violent death was the norm;
>children who were lucky enough to survive infancy rarely reached adulthood
>with two living parents but still grew up and built rich and satisfying
>lives.  Safely ensconced in the comfort of our upper middle class lives,
>we blur the distinction between trauma and discomfort.  Or as I remind my
>students from time to time, life is hard, then you die.
>
>I would relish the opportunity to voir dire one of these psychologists who
>scuttles around in the dark corners of their discipline; running short of
>victims of satanic cults practicing ritual sexual abuse, they have turned
>their attention to victims of movies, video games, television shows, and
>the various religions, always substituting "intuitive conpetence" for
>reputable research.  Daubert is a bulwark against just such nonsense; its
>non-exclusive checklist for assessing reliability includes (1) whether an
>expert's theory can be or has been tested; (2) whether her theory has
>withstood peer review and publication; (3) whether there is a known or
>potential rate of error; (4) whether standards exist for the application
>of the theory; and (5) whether the theory has been generally accepted by
>the relevant scientific community. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94.  
>
>The relevance to constitutional law is this -- parents have a liberty
>interest in the care of their children that includes a first amendment
>right to choose what literature, film, theology, and entertainment to
>share with them.  Though the state has a legitimate role to play in
>protecting children from harm, that role is and should be sharply limited
>in matters of speech (e.g., obscenity); it should take much more than the
>unsubstantiated, unscientific, highly contested opinions of a few
>clinicians to trump the first amendment right of parents to choose whether
>to expose their children to The Passion.
>
>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 Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Lynne Henderson wrote:
>
>  
>
>>With all due respect, Michael, my experience and knowledge of the
>>socialscience of trauma and child abuse suggests such testimony could easil
>>ysurvive a *Daubert* hearing and be admissible.
>>And do sugges that qualified psychologists and psychiatrists who work with
>>trauma and suggest that exposure to violent images showing a beloved or even
>>more important figure is "BS" is both misguieded and cruel.  We have plenty
>>of evidence that a child seeing a parent physically harmed or killed is
>>traumatic, and images may have the same effect.
>>Sincerely
>>Lynne
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "Michael MASINTER" <masinter at nova.edu>
>>To: "Lynne" <hendersl at ix.netcom.com>
>>Cc: <conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 7:03 PM
>>Subject: Re: The Passion Movie - Question
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>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
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20040306/e45809f2/attachment.htm