Hacker News Reader

Comment by donatj | Hacker News Reader

On the one hand I'm always against censorship in all forms.

On the other hand this movie just seems needless, tasteless and unlike say Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator", serves not to be properly satyrical, but rather just as a disgusting empowerment fantasy.

That said, I think its well within the theaters right not to show it, but I'm internally divided on the issue.

View on HN

Rights don't erode from the center, they erode from the edges. As such protecting the rights at the edges is where it's most important. If you find yourself defending the center, it's generally already too late.

Which censors don't claim that the objects that they wish to censor are needless, tasteless, and harmful to the good moral character of the people?

The dictator was aired in 1940 when Hitler was still well-alive and the US was not at war against Germany.

I pretty sure some people were making the exact same comments back in these days.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator

Hitler (Adenoid Hynckel) falls off a vehicle and arrested and humiliated by his own men in classic Charlie Chaplin style. It's a great hilarious movie but there's no dignity in it and there's certainly an empowerment fantasy involved.

Maybe you should rewatch The Great Dictator.

What is wrong with a "needless tasteless" movie? The primary purpose of movies is to entertain, and neither being "needless" nor "tasteless" prevents a movie from entertaining.

Seriously, how is your appraisal of the content relevant at all?

> On the other hand this movie just seems needless, tasteless and unlike say Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator", serves not to be properly satyrical, but rather just as a disgusting empowerment fantasy.

Based on what?

Once you start picking and choosing what deserves to be censored or not, it's already over.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com