JimF-LowBari Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) And I'd say, I would admire a corps that is intellectual in the way you describe, I think that would be awesome, and I think more corps probably should do that. So how does one make symbols of hatred or acts of violence/hatred "intellectual"? Sounds like the atheist group that put up billboards showing slaves in chains and insults to believers and then defended it by saying "We're trying to inform people". Edited September 29, 2012 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 29, 2012 Author Share Posted September 29, 2012 Let's see if we can come to an agreement on something: At some point in a person's adult scholastic education the academic study of Caligula is probably acceptable; but showing the Malcolm McDowell movie of Caligula to a high school history class would probably be going too far. Agreed? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Let's see if we can come to an agreement on something: At some point in a person's adult scholastic education the academic study of Caligula is probably acceptable; but showing the Malcolm McDowell movie of Caligula to a high school history class would probably be going too far. Agreed? But showing them a movie about the Revolutionary War with cannonballs detaching heads from bodies would be okay. (I'm thinking of a scene from "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson.) Violence in American art has always been more acceptable than sex. Sweden prohibited children from seeing "ET" because ET was being chased by guys with guns. (I'm not making that up.) That's one reason Spielberg, in his newer version, edited out the guns when the bicycles went flying over the heads of the law enforcement personnel, replacing some with communications devices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 I am not digging at you, I promise. But when people refer to Free Speech most do not understand the US Constitutional meaning. In Amendment One of the US Constitution it states that, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...". This amendment applies just to Federal Congress and not to any other entity; it does not even apply to State Governments (which is addressed in the Tenth Amendment). Therefore, the Board of DCI could create, if they so desired, any rule they wanted limiting any type of speech they wanted within the realm of DCI. WGI and BOA could do the same. This is also why the Mods here on DCP can edit anything they want at any time they want without breaking any part of the Constitutional First Amendment. I think that even more so, it's because DCP is privately owned and when we signed up, we agreed to such terms. We are here as invited guests, and if any of us ever go off on a tangent that is uncomfortable to the community standards of DCP, we can find out we are no longer eligible to post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 29, 2012 Author Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) But showing them a movie about the Revolutionary War with cannonballs detaching heads from bodies would be okay. (I'm thinking of a scene from "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson.) Violence in American art has always been more acceptable than sex. Sweden prohibited children from seeing "ET" because ET was being chased by guys with guns. (I'm not making that up.) That's one reason Spielberg, in his newer version, edited out the guns when the bicycles went flying over the heads of the law enforcement personnel, replacing some with communications devices. a) The movie The Patriot, although portraying some semblance of historical issues, The Patriot is not based on any factually real person nor is the storyline of the protagonist based on any factually based information (whereas the movie Caligula is based on a real person with a real storyline based on factual information); so to me The Patriot would not even be a good movie to study history; and b) I would also contend that it's rating (UR) which is just like Caligula would not be appropriate to show at a high school anyway. Edited September 29, 2012 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 a) The movie The Patriot, although portraying some semblance of historical issues, The Patriot is not based on any factually real person nor is the storyline of the protagonist based on any factually based information (whereas the movie Caligula is based on a real person with a real storyline based on factual information); so to me The Patriot would not even be a good movie to study history; and b) I would also contend that it's rating (UR) which is just like Caligula would not be appropriate to show at a high school anyway. I sat through plenty of movies in high school that weren't based on specific people or singular events, but were thought by teachers to provide insight into the essence of a time period. I'd have to dig up news archives from around 40 AD to determine if the movie is truly representational of the reign of Emperor Caligula, and perhaps review video footage of his assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) when people refer to Free Speech most do not understand the US Constitutional meaning. Therefore, the Board of DCI could create, if they so desired, any rule they wanted limiting any type of speech they wanted within the realm of DCI. WGI and BOA could do the same. You are correct in the first sentence( with you being a good example of apparently not understanding the US Constitution regarding both the freedoms provided as well as the limitations of free speech ). Your second sentence is inaccurate. DCI can NOT create " any rule they wanted limiting any speech they wanted within the realm of DCI". For example, the US Supreme Court has broadened and included the rights of " Free Speech " to be campaign ccontributions by free individuals to associations, imcluding DCI and political candidates for example. It is not unfettered and there are limitations, but it demonstrates the elasticity of how the courts have extended the rights of individuals to free speech and has put the burden on others, ie DCI to demonstrate why any particular measure they adopt is not in some way restrictive of another's fundamental exercise of their 1st Amendment Rights. For example DCI could not enact a law that said that fans at a DCI show may not boo any Corps at a show or they will be evicted. While booing is in bad taste, and DCI may want to eliminate it, one does not give up their 1st Amendment rights with their entry into a DCI show no matter what DCI might enact. It would be struck down immediately, and DCI could be subjected to a lawsuit for impinging upon the freedom of speech rights and removing a fan for merely booing a Corps. DCI would be on solid ground by removing an unruly fan however, as such fan's behavior could be seen by the courts as intrusive on other fans right to public safety. But no, DCI is not given cart blanche to institute whatever they want that restricts one's 1st Amendment Rights, Stu. As a matter of fact, they must be careful that any initiatives they enact are not in violation of one's Freedom of Speech, or any other freedoms we as individuals enjoy under the Constitution's Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has routinely ruled over the years that the burden is on the entity that wants to restrict one's freedom of speech and must show compelling cause for doing so, Stu. Edited September 29, 2012 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 It's already playing in Los Angeles. Can't wait to see it! I wonder if people would be offended with just the (awesome) music, minus the lyrics? When the South Park movie first opened, I almost convinced a band director to use music in an Americana-themed show: it would've been completely out of context from the movie, and have nothing to do with the vulgar lyrics or visuals in the film. But he didn't want to fight that battle (and I don't blame him). I think a drum corps could get away with it easier than a scholastic band: especially if a drum corps did it well. Heck, we have audience raving, Championship winning shows that feature multiple murders! I'm probably going to try going down for my birthday to see it. I think if people would just use the music, without the lyrics, it would fly well. There are songs in the show which have no vulgarity or anything in them, that could work fine. And yes, a drum corps could probably get away with much more. I mean, we've seen shows with other musicals that could be seen as controversial (Wicked, Jesus Christ Superstar, Phantom of the Opera, etc.) Yeah, violence in a drum corps show seems to be fine, but religious material is a big no-no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
En929 Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) So how does one make symbols of hatred or acts of violence/hatred "intellectual"? Sounds like the atheist group that put up billboards showing slaves in chains and insults to believers and then defended it by saying "We're trying to inform people". It’s done in movies all the time. Edited September 29, 2012 by En929 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) It’s done in movies all the time. I was thinking of band/corps shows but wasn't specific enough... my bad.... But since you mention it how about a moive/play example. Are you thinking like "Equuis"(sp) or 'Richard III' with Ian McKellan? Edited September 29, 2012 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts