Mr. Begg:

I read with interest your response to my assertion on the B-Movie 
Mailing List the other  night.  I felt I made myself rather clear 
with my response to your (and other's), diatribes regarding 
Censorship.  When I tackled the issue, it was not my intent to 
defend the specifics of  Smith's movie, but to examine and react 
to the larger issue at hand.  One of the problems with 
correspondence such as the list, lies in the time-lag, and 
tangetical meanderings inherent.  Unfortunately, this often leaves 
disclarity among readers.

First of all, the first major "Flag" I encountered in your argument 
on the list, was the comment about, and I must paraphrase,  "If 
someone made a movie called "The Last Temptation of Martin Luther 
King, Jr.", there would be plenty of commotion", or somesuch.  Your 
allusion here seems to betray your politics!  Are you implying that 
the depiction of a courageous American, (Christian, by the way!), 
Freedom Fighter, should be treated any differently than a religious 
icon of questionable existence? Are you implying that the "Liberal 
Press" would treat him with more respect? Because he was a black man?  
This argument of yours, is frequently used by Fundamentalists when 
taking their soapbox.  It reminds me of a young child trying to 
justify his actions to a parent.  "But Bobby's Mother lets him do 
it!?!"  Forgive me, even as an Atheist, I accept the probability of 
a MAN named Jesus of Nazareth.  I withdraw the implied insult.  

(I should point out at this time, that after reading your personal 
response, that it became obvious to me that we are both diametrically 
opposed on the larger issue of morality.  I am rather liberal in my 
personal beliefs and agenda, and conversely I discern a deep 
conservativism between the lines of your arguments.  Correct me if I 
am wrong.  At any rate, if this is the case, then I do not expect to 
get very far with you.  However, I shall try.)

If some of my statements seem "flummoxing" to you, it is because I 
was responding to the List, and others had input on both sides of the 
coin.  Forgive me if generalizations were made, and they didn't 
necessarily pertain to you.  

I felt the film had less to do with the discussion than the larger 
issue of Censorship.  Therefore, I maintain, in this case, that 
viewing the film was NOT a prerequisite.  We could have been 
discussing "The Song of Bernadette" for that matter.  ("The Song of 
Bernadette" was a controversial film of the forties relating the tale 
of a young woman who claimed to have had conversations with the Virgin 
Mary.  This film was also met with a certain amount of controversy.  
Mostly within the Christian community.  Protestants and Catholics 
alike.  Somebody was insulted.  I forget who at any rate, it was a 
wonderful film, that won four well-deserved Oscars.)

I never said,  that you claimed "Dogma" was suppressing Free Speech.  
I implied that you seemed displeased that the Catholic League was 
under fire for their comments about this film.  You seemed to think 
that the Catholic Church should be immune to satire.  My implication 
was that I didn't feel they had any more right to protest, than anyone 
else, and they were not "special". Smith's defense of his film is as 
justified as their denunciation.   I do not recognize the Catholic 
Church to be any different than any other so-called moral institution.  

  I love this division of morality and legality!  You know, if the 
Christians of this world spent more time worrying about their own 
morals, and less time trying to insult and change the rest of the 
world, there would  be a lot more Peace to go around!  My friend, 
Legality IS the normal accepted morality of a given society.  Just 
because it isn't "fine-tuned" to your particular bias, doesn't make 
it immoral.  People must live together in organized societies, or 
chaos will ensue.  No two people are alike, and eventually everyone 
finds fault with something.  That's Human Nature! Therefore we rule 
our societies with a roster of rules.  We would like to have the least 
amount of rules possible.  Unfortunately, simple rules leave room for 
interpretation.  It saddens me to say, that throughout my life, I have 
found most people to be irresponsible, selfish, and insincere.  
Unfortunately, this is why we must have law.  

 
Anyway, to your definition of Free Speech.  1) Correct 2) It is no 
longer the province of the Supreme Court to define Obscenity as per 
localities.  Obscenity is defined by local statutes within the 
boundaries imposed by the Supreme Court.  (Child Pornography, 
Beastiality, Snuff films, etc. are considered illegal in the United 
States.  However, some states, counties, and municipalities, have 
instituted their own restrictions in addition to this.  These are 
known as Community Standards, and it is possible that these may be 
considered unconstitutional at a later date.)  At no time in the 
history of the United States, has it been legal for an individual to 
force the Government to do anything that is against the written laws 
of the land, better known as the Constitution.  You may gather with 
others with like ideas, you may support a candidate with your 
particular bent, and you may spend your dollars on commercials, 
organize protests, boycott, lobby (The closest definition to what you 
implied.), publish, or sky-write anything (within Community Standards!)
; with the intent and /or hope of changing public opinion, and hence 
legislators, but you cannot withhold your taxes, or try to SPECIFY 
their use.

I did not say that protesters do not have the right to PERSUADE others 
not to see the film.  I did say that protesters do not have the right 
to physically prevent anything, and a consumer boycott would be 
perfectly legitimate.  However, Economic Blackmail is not.  Case in 
point: Mayor Rudy Guilianni recently ordered his office to withhold 
funds from an important Art museum in NY, because he was offended by 
a tasteless painting displayed there.  He was brought to task for this, 
and a restraining order was instituted by a local court.  The issue 
here is abuse of power.  A public official has no right to impose his 
personal beliefs upon his constituency.  He is a Public SERVANT!…Not 
God, Pope, or Allah.  By the way, I didn't like the painting either, 
but the artist and the museum had the right to display it.

Boycotting.  A perfectly legitimate form of Civil Protest.  I wonder 
if the Catholic Church used its astronomical wealth, to purchase every 
print of "Dogma", so as to prevent anyone from seeing it; would that 
be a boycott?  William Randolph Hearst reportedly did this with an 
unfavorable article about his mistress.  A certain gentleman purchased 
OJ's Heissman Trophy, only to destroy it publicly.  The Christian 
Science Church purchased a "deprogramming clinic", one of its chief 
adversaries, and surreptitiously ran it as such.  Apparently, all of 
these things are legal.  They are the anathema of a boycott.  
Suggesting that groups not buy a product, or participate in an action 
are definitely legal venues.  I wonder, if it would still be legal if 
the Church threatened excommunication to anyone NOT participating in a 
boycott?  Not to say that they would!?!  (No meat on Friday, 
Non-Kosher foods, working on the Sabbath, using birth control devices, 
eating with one's left hand, etc, etc, etc.)

The further I read your response, the more confused I get.  You opened 
the discussion about Free Speech in your initial missive, yet in your 
response to me, you seem to have forgotten that we were on that 
sidetrack.  I mentioned Buchanan, because you and/or one of your 
allies in the debate mentioned him.  I merely responded to your claim. 
 (By the way, if you think Buchanan is Left-Wing, you must be so far 
to the Right as to fall off the edge of the Earth!  Even the Catholic 
Church has admitted the world was round since the 15th century! 
Har-har! LOL!) Sorry about that!

In your last paragraph you implied that Smith had greater resources to 
tout and defend his movie stance, than his protestors.  Are you trying 
to tell me that Ken Smith, the film maker has more money and influence 
than the Roman Catholic Church?  I hate to disillusion you, but Vatican
City and its citizenry have more wealth than the majority of nations 
throughout the entire world.  In addition, the Pope has more influence 
than virtually anyone on the planet.  There are more Christians in the 
world than any other denomination, and more Catholics amongst them.    

  
     One of the major differences between Conservatives and Liberals, 
is that Conservatives seem to want to restrict human behavior, while 
at the same time proclaiming the evils of "Big Government"  They seem 
to yearn for the "Good Old Days" when the white anglo-saxon Protestant, 
or Catholic, reigned supreme.  Those of us on the liberal side, just 
want tolerance, and the freedom to press on, adapting to the changes 
inherent with the natural progress of Man's destiny.

Sincerely,

Wayne Brown