Damn, someone beat me too it....Originally Posted by mats.hogberg
+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 57 of 57
-
Originally Posted by hech54
They have banned Speedy Gonzalez for being "racially imperfect" or something "negative" against Mexicans. It's SO hard to find a full line-up of speedy toons, outside of some bootlegs (pressed HK discs and homemades).
They have given all of the Tom & Jerry cartoons black characters (often known as Mammy Black Soles) a voice that sounds like Oprah. Instead of saying "scat yo derned cat" she'll now say, "get away from me Thomas". I just wanna puke all over the place when T&J comes on CN these days.
I'm lucky to have a full set of unedited (perfect quality too) T&J shows, as well as many of the banned Disney's and WB's WWII, anti-immigrant and anti-black cartoons from the 1930s-1960s. Bugs Bunny calling the Japs "slanty-eyes" and making fun of the black kids huge lips are funny. It's no worse "racially" or "politically uncorrect" than any number of movies I could see in theatres.
I'm also lucky to have a LaserDisc rip of the "Song of the South" movie from Disney, something they have vowed to keep locked up forever, due to it "racial insensitivity".... whatever the hell that's supposed to mean... and that's a recent comment from the Eisner days.
Rest assured.. Time Warner and Disney have full vaults of original footage. They are choosing to not release it. It's not because of "lost" footage. It's a choice. This I know, as I've been privvy enough to meet and talk with quite a few people in-the-know in my years as a cartoon collector.
It really sucks.
This extends to books, radio shows, movies and comics too. Censorship is alive and well. Only it's the private sector doing it, not the government.
I hope many banned shows become unbanned before I die, which will hopefully be a long time from now. There's still plenty of time for people to get UNstupid on this, and let art be art. If you don't like it, don't look at it. Don't try to change it, only the original creator should be allowed that kind of leeway, not some bogus "copyright owner" ******* that wants to impress his/her useless values or "morals" on it.
Again, censorship sucks.Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
[quote="lordsmurf"]
Originally Posted by hech54 -
Originally Posted by housepig
Oh, I agree - I personally do not like edited material, but also dont arrogantly paint those who do as religious American nut cases who ought to be shot.
Furthermore, the fact that Walmart et al, sell a lot of these edited movies must mean there is enough demand for it. Obviously, the editing of Scarface is laughable, but movies like Jerry Maguire only need the F words and the heated bang session at the beginning of the movie taken out.
Another thing, movies are edited before they are released, so there is no such thing as originally intended art.
It was the "joke" at the beginning of this thread which was my bone of contention, not so much censored material. [/b][/quote] -
If you have the time, you can convert to AVI and use Vegas 4.0 to edit the scenes exactly how you'd like them to be.
Not only can you remove frames, you can even blur out sections of the screen to keep the scene intact and remove whatever you don't want seen.
You can also pan and scan or crop parts of the screen...or add a counter and place it over that area of the screen
Lots of different effects can be applied and it's very easy to use.
Even take the frames with nudity and open each in photoshop and color over them...and/or create clothes and put them the on nude person(s) 8)
It'll take time...but it can be done.
You can export the audio track into Sound Forge or Cool Edit and remove offensive language or insert your own bleeping or silence if you'd like.
Vegas will also allow you to add your own scenes to a movie...so for the other gang, you can make those Disney movies a little more interesting if you'd like
I don't advocate censorship, but I understand completely about how Hollywood goes about throwing in unnecessary gratuitous stuff for the sake of attracting attention, and not really anything the writer or director themselves wanted in the story.
I'm all for ART and the artist's work being preserved...but let's be realistic, Hollywood isn't about making ART - it's all about making $$$
Most of the sex, colorful language or violence is formula - just an ingredient used to help boost the gross of the film.
Effects are there for the same reasons. It sells more tickets.
It's gotten to point where the sex scene is what a chorus is to a song - you know ahead of time it's coming
Independent Films or stuff produced outside the US are a different situation - even though some may use the same props, the creators have a lot more control over their work, so the content of those films are usually how the artists want their work to be seen.
Anyway, it's not all bad or bad for ya...and sometimes the stuff that shows more is less offensive than the stuff that shows less.
It has more to do with personal tastes, so I sort of see it from both sides.
Best of luck, FWIW -
Originally Posted by lordsmurf
So far I've seen 5(?) DVD's out of Bugs and Daffy stuff SUPPOSEDLY taken from the original uncut versions. Haven't seen them yet except for Ebay. WB lost quite a few of their copyrights of their old Bugs and Co. cartoons in the past 15 years. They only have "broadcast rights" on some now and pay dearly for it too. (A friend of mine is a recording artist who is with a subsidary of the BIG WB Records).
Anyway....I heard that Bill Cosby bought the rights to Song Of The South and is "sitting on it" for the racial negativity of that movie. If he did....he's an ass....you're right...that is messing with ART.
How can I get Song Of The South ? -
Rookie...thanks...I'll try that software too...
As for the rest of you...I have one thing to say...
37 REPLIES !!! I'm so proud!!!
JENNY -
Actually if Hollywood wanted to increase their profits they would clean up a lot of the trash they put out, but in many cases they have an agenda to promote and that gets in the way. I don't care if they're left or right if they put out an intelligent flick without the propaganda. But to watch some chick run around like a bitch in heat, or listen to some stud exercise his complete vocabulary of four letter words in ten seconds is not my idea of entertainment. Entertainment to me makes you think and lifts you up ... encourages you to be better and pursue some higher ideals ... gives you hope for the future. I don't spend a lot of my time around foul mouthed people, so I won't pay to have the same trash brought into my home, and I certainly won't train my kids to behave like many of the actors that are considered popular. So the point was well taken about removing objectionable material ....... I've even done it with VHS. There are good movies that have an excess of foul words and nudity ...... The point can be made without it ... so a good reason for editing. A legitimate question.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms." - THOMAS JEFFERSON .. 1776 -
Yes, but....
I hear arguments here that we are not seeing what the director/writer wanted us to see, and I hear "Oh, no, you don't want full screen, the Director wants you to see that."
But now we have to cut all the cusswords and skin that that same director played hell to get just right.I mean,what oodd is a smutty double entendre that no one gets?
These United States WERE settled by Bluenoses, Puritans, who couldd not stand to see anyone enjoying ANYTHING. We have them with us still.
There is a large minority that enjoys nothing more than denying others any pleasure at all. Ascetics?
If you cut everything objectionable from a film, you have no film, period.
A better question is why do you not just watch the movie yourself, without the kids rather than try to make a Long John, the skin flick, into a kid's movie?
What can you edit out and still see the things that the "director" wanted you to see?
You cn cut and bleep all you want. Be warned that some of those you wish to cut the daylights out of,you may find incomprehensible without some of the "Oh, s**ts" .
Oh well, you can't stand the trash talk, or the skin, but still want your kids to watch the movie, well butchered, have fun
Cheers
George. -
Originally Posted by Gritz
If there is no point, or the content is not appealing, I choose to not watch the movie, not fiddle with editing it out... that was the directors job.
Don't get me wrong though... I like innocent films too. Ma and Pa Kettle flicks are great, as are old serials. All clean entertainment. What clean movies? Check out AMC, TCM and others with similar philosophies.
To me, non-artist editing is just as wrong as "copyright infringement" if not moreso.
If and when I have kids, I'll simply say "no, that's not a film for you, wait until you're older... as was what my parents did to me". It worked fine. I didn't get to see Porky's movies for years... and I now know why. This is also a perfect examples, as the edited-for-tv versions almost don't make any sense. You MUST see and hear everything to get the jokes in the movies.Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
Entertaining reading people ...entertaining.....
Got me a giggling to my self over something that happened a few years ago with the "wife N kids".(both under 8 years at the time)
Rented : The Green Mile and Erin Brockovich one night.
Not having previously seen the movies,and thinking The Green Mile might have disturbing 'death row' scenes we opted for Erin Brockavich.
Needless to say ten fuckin minutes into the ******* **** fuk movie** I just rolled my eyes , looked at the wife and said o well what the **** to late now .
**those of you that have seen this movie will understand.
][ -
Originally Posted by lordsmurf
Lordsmurf, I'm glad you weren't my Dad...you're mean
I guess I lucked out when I was a kid, 'cause my parents weren't strict at all about movies.
I saw a lot of R-rated movies thru-out the '70s before I reached my teens.
I came from a big sized family and we often went to the drive-ins in those days - that was before cable TV and video.
It actually wasn't that uncommon for kids to be at drive-ins with full frontal nudity on the screen - I mean both male and female nudity.
And there you had kids all over the place swinging on the swings and playing below the screen - seriously.
But I also knew a lot of kids my age had parents that didn't allow them to see anything R-rated...no matter what.
To me, that seemed harsh at the time...and I really didn't understand why their parents were so uptight about nudity.
My cousins had a very strict upbringing and we were very close growing up, so that was always a big difference of how we were raised, yet they weren't the ones uptight about it - they were very open minded, like I was, but their parents were adamant about it.
My aunt used to give me these long cold glares if I even suggested us going to see a movie
Anyway, being exposed to nudity didn't make me turn out to be a sex maniac or anything...far from it.
Though I had a very heathy balance of both adult and family films.
I've probably seen more Disney movies growing up than most kids do.
I liked movies - and I didn't care what the rating was...it was the story or people in the movies that interested me.
However, in the '70s, the movies weren't always distributed "unedited"
Quite often, scenes were spliced out (and the paying public probably weren't even aware of it then).
It wasn't until cable and video came along that I started noticing things I knew weren't in those movies when I saw them at a drive-in.
Just a few offhand -
Don't Look Now - controversial sex/love scene between Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland was totally chopped to pieces at the drive-in (this just happened to be the second feature - quite a few years after the film was released) It took a couple years to get the film released because of legal issues over obscenity charges.
The scene is important in context of the story...to convey a couple who are dealing with the death of their child being able to feel and experince joy/bliss/sex again while going through so much guilt/pain/emotional suffering.
None of that was captured without the scene - it took years for me to figure out what the movie was about.
Mandingo] - you still saw full frontal nudity at the drive-in, but I guess an interracial sex scene between Susan George and Ken Norton was taboo in those days, 'cause the scene was cut heavily.
BTW, despite the amount of sex and nudity, it's a very well-made film.
Buster And Billie also has frontal nudity, both sexes, and a brutal gang rape scene - very well-made and tastefully done despite the content.
One of the best movies ever made, IMO.
Very moving story and heartbreaking.
Nothing was cut out at the drive-in, fortunately...but it took a number of years for that to get released on video, and quickly went out of print.
Hasn't gotten any airplay on cable - possibly due to the rape scene.
Even over periods of time, often scenes get cut from pay cable and video versions - even the DVD versions (believe it or not)
Capone shot in two versions...one with frontal nudity, the other with no nudity. Some pay cable stations only aired the version with no nudity.
The scenes weren't cut - just shot two different ways.
Breezy - edited version shown on pay cable, uncut version with nudity for the video release.
Last Summer - huge scene completely removed from all pay cable stations, because it involved a graphic gang rape scene - 2 guys & 1 female rape their overweight teen friend (female)
The scene is crucial to the plot, as it is the climax of the film, yet all is lost in the cable version - the audience are left clueless.
In Praise Of Older Women - male frontal nudity was edited when it originally aired on Showtime.
HBO only aired heavily cut versions of The Last Picture Show due to full frontal nudity.
Last Tango In Paris - for several years, this movie had gone a number of cuts and re-cuts on cable.
Only the Sundance Channel has shown the film completely unedited.
The film was stamped with an X-rating because of the controversial "butter" rape scene.
It would be NC-17 by today's rating system.
Many movies made in the '90s that went directly to video, were shot in cool and hot versions...giving the customers the choice of what version they'd like to see. Some video stores only carried the tame versions (such as Blockbuster) and the pay cable channels usually aired the tame versions only.
A lot of movies are shot and released in different versions for different markets - the tamer American releases and the more explicit European releases.
Americans can only obtain these versions underground or Imported, as they are not made available.
Many of these are mainstream big budget movies.
Then you have the director's cut of various movies.
Many director's cuts didn't see the light of day until the DVD age - stuff from decades ago that no one saw uncut until now.
Some scenes never got restored - even today, they are locked away in some studio vault.
It's been going on for years, so if some people want the option of having things removed from their own copies, it's understandable to me, and I don't think it's infringement.
Broadcast TV channels edit movies all the time for content - that's been going on since movies have been shown on TV.
Even 16mm films were distributed mostly in the edited for TV versions before the the video revolution began.
There have been a number of books and documentaries made on this subject.
It would be a book just to list the movie titles I'm aware of.
And I think I just wrote a book as it is responding to this thread
If there is no point, or the content is not appealing, I choose to not watch the movie, not fiddle with editing it out... that was the directors job.
The script didn't have nudity to begin with, and it wasn't the director's job to cut them out, but required to put them in
Seriously, this has been discussed in detail on Entertainment Tonight and similar shows.
The director of Valley Girl stated she was hired under the condition that she would have at least 2 scenes within the film that exposed bare breasts. They didn't care whose breasts they were or how long you saw 'em or how they related to the story - the just had to be seen at least two times in the movie.
Some movies may target a younger crowd, but have maybe one or two sceens thrown in with skin.
A movie like National Lampoon's Vacation comes to mind - a couple times you see Beverly D'Angelo topless (notice she has a bikini on to cover her bottom parts in the shower scene!)
I can see parents reasons for allowing their kids to view the movie without the breasts...they don't have much to do with the story, yet it's still a fun movie the family could enjoy.
Another movie that comes to mind, Swamp Thing - hardly an adult film. It's basically a kids movie, but the DVD version is the European release with nudity. These scenes were cut from the American release to get a PG rating...but when DVD first came out, it was aimed towards the serious moviegoer, so they included the full uncut version.
Now DVD is as common as VHS, so a lot of causual vewiers are seeing these today.
How To Beat The High Cost Of Living - PG movie with a close-up shot of bare breasts (not even Jane Curtin's breasts - a body double filled in for the nudity)
Logan's Run - good sci-fi film that would be of interest to some younger viewers. PG rated, but contains a brief nude scene with Jenny Agutter
It's scenes like these that I think are what brought the topic up.
The scenes are somewhat harmless, yet still objectionable to some people.
Just personal choice or tastes for where some may draw the line for family entertainment.
I had gone to a Catholic High School, and our class went to a theater to see Romeo and Juliet when I was a freshman.
There I was sitting next to two nuns, while Romeo is standing butt naked on the screen...and a sixteen year old bare-breated Juliet jumps out of bed
I believe the movie, to this day, is shown completely unedited on TV.
So nudity doesn't always offend and religion isn't the cause
For some people, it's a sensitive issue.
My sister-in-law has kids and she is very offended by any type of nudity.
Her reasons extend to being abused by her own mother as a kid.
Others feel that certain nude scenes insult their intelligence.
When a movie downplays it's audience, or depicts women only as sex objects or belittles women in general, a lot of women do find that offensive.
Mainly, 'cause the film doesn't portray women or life as they really are, but moreso how the filmmaker views them.
If the movie is a comedy and not supposed to be taken seriously, that's one thing - but when a movie takes itself seriously or expects its audience to, it can very much offend.
I know a lot of women feel Hollywood is exploitive to women.
The amount of female nudity and/or movies with bare breasts can get to the point where it's degrading.
If it's in good taste or part of the plot, that's one thing, but just to be there for titillation is something a lot of women are outspoken about.
A lot of actresses complain they were tricked or pressured into doing nude scenes, or nude scenes were added later on with a standin...and they didn't know about it until the movie was released.
Anyway, it's something that will always be an issue for some.
Many American males complain there isn't enough sex in movies, and guys outside the US don't understand the prudish attitudes of Americans.
A lot of mainstream European films go a lot further with sex than American made films...and there are places in the world that show this stuff on regular TV (not talking cable) for viewers of any age.
It's something people are not gonna agree on - a lot of people feel it violates their privacy, integrity or their morals...while others don't think twice about it. -
Well, IMHO, if cencorship should be applied (for the benefit of the younger viewers), I'd rather take out violence than nakedness/erotic scenes. I'd much rather see my girl grow up with the belief that the Meaning Of Life is screwing eachother (and maybe even say a dirty word or two) than killing, molesting, beating up in general and hurting eachother. Now, if avoidable, I try to keep her from looking at the most explicit erotic movies, but I'm yet to see anything that explicit on the "non pornographic" channels, to which I don't subscribe in the first place.
/Mats -
Originally Posted by mats.hogberg
And I'm fully aware of non-USA releases and movies being more erotic. I caught on to this a few years ago. The movie UK movie Intimacy still blows me away, no pun intended, because of the on-screen fellatio (blow job, for all you laymen out there) in an R-rated movie.
And I've had to buy movies from all over the world just to get uncut editions (sometimes just to get ANY edition at all!)
Well, good talking to you all. Spending too much time in this post.Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
Holistic said
got me a giggling to my self over something that happened a few years ago with the "wife N kids".(both under 8 years at the time)You can't fool me, I'm a moron! -
Actually I don't care what anyone else watches nor would I want to restrict what they spend their time viewing. It's no skin off my teeth and I don't have to answer for what they do .... nor do I care. But I am selective in what I watch and what my kids watch. The idea that what you view does not influence you would be the same as stateing that tv advertising has no effect ...... and I just make a choice to avoid those things that are objectionable to me, knowing that I have weaknessess and can be influenced by what I take in. I don't think directors know it all or have all the answers .... or are necessarily the smartest people in the world .... but they do have a visual impact with what they hope to create, and a lot of what they create may have shock value, but otherwise no intelligent content. But I pick and choose and call it like I see it ...... and I don't have any problem with others doing the same.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms." - THOMAS JEFFERSON .. 1776 -
My two cents ... I like Shrek and my 3-old likes Sherk. The old lady when turning the "Donkey" in uses the work "damn". Also, the Donkey might also use "damn" later in the movie. My question is why? I didn't edited it out and I let my 3-year watch it ... but I really don't like him going around saying "DAMN". But on the bright side, I can always use the excuse that he learned it from the movie (and not me) if he does.
BTW, I feel very strongly that it's the parent's right to determine what their small children, and to some extent their older children, see and hear. So who are you (and I using you in the generic sense) to judge them when they excerise that right by editing out certain portions of a movie that THEY find objectionable. -
Originally Posted by rkr1958
Look at that. Made another post.Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
Originally Posted by lordsmurf
-
This kind of thing really chaps my ass man. I live in a country founded on freedom of religion and freedom of expression, but no freedom to avoid persecution from those religions if my beliefs do not fall within a status quo. So, for now (and many years into the future) I'll have to suffer through an interminable TNT run of "The Shawshank Redemption" with every single "foul" word cut from it's entirety. Such things make me wanna puke in my pudding! Didn't anyone ever hear of "colloquial expressions" or "local dialects". I entirely realize that dialects have nothing to do with profanity, as far as the frequency it is used, but to strip a character of it's... character, is just ruining a great movie. Previously in this fine forum, someone mentioned that they watched an edited version of Lethal Weapon on TV. I have seen this version. I don't envision a character such as Martin Riggs saying "This is freaking dung!". Uh uh my friends. What's next? Clean versions of books? Let's do that. Let's dig into all the classic/cotemporary reading material and make two different versions. Sorry Mr. Edgar Allan Poe, your "Murders In The Rue Morgue" is far too gruesome. Sorry Mr. King, but we are going to change the evil character in your book "IT" from a horrible spider creature, to a not so horrible, non-agenda having, fluffy little bunny that lures kids into it's underground lair not to eat them, but to give them easter eggs full of dental floss. I don't think this is too much of a stretch... hell, everytime in history someone in power didn't agree with something in the Bible... they edited it. JUMP ON THE BAND WAGON PEOPLE!!!! HIDE THE TRUTH FROM EVERYONE!!!
You know, I have some friends at work that have children and they have reservations about letting their kids watch movies with an R rating. Their standards follow something like this:
Doesn't matter who dies or what is said (Violence/Profanity is not an issue) just as long as no one is naked.
These "kids" are 17 years old.
I think I remember hearing a story about a certain group of people who tried to hide sexuality from their children. There are a bunch of books on them too. A shame really... they are all dead... most of them. Executed for being SERIAL KILLERS with serious sexual identity issues.
Also, I do remember seeing something on TV recently, I believe it was a period piece... took place in the 1930's -40's, lot of book burnings, Ethnic cleansing... thank god for the subtitles because all of the dialogue was in GERMAN!!!
To all of those who endeavor to censor and stifle... go **** yourself... oh sorry... go freak yourself. -
I live in a country founded on freedom of religion and freedom of expression, but no freedom to avoid persecution from those religions if my beliefs do not fall within a status quo.
I think it is ridiculous to think editing a movie for content threatens us in any way. Which is more threatening: showing gratuitous head-chopping and sex to children, or not showing it to them?
You cannot seriously think that the 'threat' of censorship is worse than the threat of violence or sexual ills. -
The ultimate question is:
Where will it end? If we let a little censorship here, and a little editing there, where will it end? Eventually, it won't. Fortunately, we live a society that is finally embracing reality not watering it down and shoving it in the closet like it used to be in the 1950's and early 1960's. Because of this repression in those times, hate fueled by ignorance ran rampant. I'm not saying this doesn't happen today, but I think because of the relaxing of censorship from what it once was and changing what is deemed acceptable, people have become more tolerant and open. This is what is ultimately about. Besides, what haven't you seen in movies that you don't see on the evening news every night of the week. Shall we censor the news? -
OT:
Did you see that Adobe has devised a filter, that doesn't allow you to open images of bills (from major currencies) in PhotoShop?!? What will they ban next?
/Mats -
Originally Posted by mats.hogberg
As far as what they will ban next, the sky is the limit, because these companies voluntarily added this to their programs. All the government did was ask them to put it in, and they did. Never mind that there are some legit uses for photos of currency - now you have to contact the federal reserve to get images to use commercially. Never mind that it is completely legal to have an image of a dollar bill as long as it's at least 75 % of the original size, or at least 150 % and single sided. Now you can't work with the image at all. I remember years ago that the photocopier companies implemented something similar in their machines, that prevents an "exact" 1:1 copy of anything, it's always off by some small percentage for the same reason. People were photocopying bills and using them in vending machines, etc. where they couldn't be easily caught. Of course, now the bill acceptors are more advanced and it's probably not so easy to fool them, but for a while it was a problem.
All you can do is use an older version of PS if you need this function, or find some other similar program that doesn't have this type of censoring mechanism included in the software.Ethernet (n): something used to catch the etherbunny -
And how do we know whether we are seeing the original or a slightly edited version? who decides what is broadcast. As to editing the evening news that already happens .. only its done by what is covered and what isnt.. two pretty young white girls being murdered is news for weeks.. many other less photogenic deaths go completely unremarked..
"Newsflash .. plane explodes, 2 Americans Hurt (full details) ...320 others also believed dead" . Relevance by nationality?Corned beef is now made to a higher standard than at any time in history.
The electronic components of the power part adopted a lot of Rubycons. -
Originally Posted by RabidDog
What you said is very true. Witness: Jon Benet Ramsey. Very cute white kid with rich parents is murdered - a very real tragedy, but they media frenzy went on for years while they never did catch the murderer. Meanwhile, many thousands of less "photogenic" (your term, and very accurate, may I add) murders are mentioned for 15 or 30 seconds on the evening news, if at all. I have commented on this many times to my friends, and it seems like very few people think of this. Sad.
Ever listen to Don Henley's song "Dirty Laundry"? It's a scathing indictment of how the evening news is decided...of course, it's based on his own experience regarding allegations he had sex with a minor a few years back (and it was headlined on the news, ahead of other issues that were deemed less "flashy").
"The bubble-headed bleach blonde comes on at 5,
she can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye,
it's interesing when people die,
they love dirty laundry..."
The "bubble-headed bleach blonde" was supposedly Christine Lund on KABC Channel 7 here in L.A. who was the one that broke the story about Henley, so he managed to get her into the song. But personal attacks aside, this song is very accurate regarding how the evening news is decided. There is bias in all news reporting, there's no way to escape it. As long as you recognize that fact, take a lot of what is reported with a grain of salt. Make up your own mind.
Case in point right now: Michael Jackson. Did he do it? Who knows? Only he (and the victim, if there really is one) knows. Maybe he's only guilty of being strange, but not criminal. In any case, I will wait until the trial to see, I don't believe anyone in this case. A lot of people have already convicted him in their mind. I don't particuarly like him, or his music, but I don't know if he is guilty or not. I think he may be convicted in the media before there is a trial...they may have a hard time finding an impartial jury.
One thing is for sure: the evening news will be there to cover every detail, overriding other possibly more important issues. The trial coverage will be extreme, and I'll probably just stop watching the news at that time.Ethernet (n): something used to catch the etherbunny
Similar Threads
-
How Do All You People Learn All This Stuff About Editing???
By JohnnyGalaga in forum EditingReplies: 37Last Post: 10th Nov 2011, 01:09 -
Epson print CD/Mac - photo editing for DVD label question??
By dvdguy24 in forum MediaReplies: 16Last Post: 20th Aug 2010, 04:51 -
Which laptop is the bes for video editing and stuff?
By Kashi169 in forum EditingReplies: 8Last Post: 10th May 2010, 09:30 -
Newbie question.. I have no idea about Divx and all that stuff!
By m0narch in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 5Last Post: 15th Apr 2009, 02:35 -
question about streaming stuff!!!!!!
By eao1 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 0Last Post: 21st Jun 2007, 15:19