I think it depends on what you mean by “community”. If you’re talking about Sandy City, the geographical area, then one community blends into another in Salt Lake Valley, just like any other American city surrounded by suburbs. I live in West Valley City and if a movie I want to see isn’t showing here I will drive an extra 5-10 minutes to see it in Murray, or 20 minutes to see it in Sandy or 15 to see it downtown. In that sense “community” is almost meaningless. If you mean “community” in the demographic sense, then you could say that Sandy is predominantly peopled by the “family community”, married people with children in school. There is a small GBL community in Sandy, although most of the GBL community in Utah resides downtown Salt Lake City, Sugarhouse, the Avenues, Park City or Ogden. I haven’t heard anything about any “community outcry” against this film in Sandy. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one, but I am a local guy who listens to NPR in the morning and I try to keep up to date on local issues. Then again groups like the Eagle Forum tend to make a disproportionate amount of noise considering their numbers, your classic tempest in a teapot.
Thus igniting Larry David’s fears.
What if a large theatre circuit, basically ran by a single person, decided to not show a type of movie?
That would make that type of movie a significantly profit risk if the studio couldn’t get played at the large circuit.
I think this is a good point. I fully agree that the owner of the theatre should have every right to show whatever he/she wants. It’s a private business in a capitalistic society, and so the market should be the primary force involved in such decisions.
But I remember the fears I was having just after Fahrenheit 9/11 came out, when the Carlyse Group bought Loews (I think it was Loews). Surely that deal had nothing to do with the movie, as it would have probably been in discussions long before the movie came out. But immediately I imagined the movie would be banned from all Loews theatres. I don’t believe that happened (at least I didn’t hear anything about it if it did).
But it could have, couldn’t it?
What if major conglomerates with certain political affiliations did own all the theatre chains and did decide what to show based on their own sociopolitical leanings? Would that still be defensible by the same arguments used here to defend the theatre owner?
Yes? I fail to see why it wouldn’t be. Freedom of press and freedom of speech != requirement to show/talk about/report everything. A free press and free speech means just that, if everyone freely chooses not to talk about something, there’s nothing wrong with that.
The internet is a competitive arena. If Yahoo chose to become a mouthpiece for the religious right, it would instantly see a massive drop in number of people visiting their website and Yahoo would quickly become marginalized. More than likely other competition would come into the market, and existing competition would become more prominent (Google, MSN, et al.)
And the problem of “100% of the people who own printing presses” is something that can only happen in theory. IN a country like the United States that has a free press, and an enormous proliferation of people who can get their message out, such a situation could honestly happen only in theory and never in fact.
What if Rupert Murdock bought CNN and NBC?
Sure there is a multitude of ways these days for people to get info (radio, internet, print, etc.) but could they compete with TV and the cable news stations?
I agree with you regarding the internet example, and that the free market can sustain itself there, but what about my movie chain example?
I don’t mean to sound like some anti-corporation, pinko lefty, because I often find myself arguing from a libertarian stand point, but I can also envision a future where, more and more, media outlets of all types are owned and operated by the wealthy.
As Max said:
Again, I’m not saying there’s any legal reason a single theatre owner shouldn’t be able to show anything he/she wants, and so, as regards the OP I don’t think this is all that pit-worthy beyond one’s own need for some personal venting at something stupid (which I’m never opposed to here anyway), but I can’t help but explore some of the possible logical ends that this might imply.
So if Yahoo announced a policy wherein they were applying anti-Christian filters to everything that went through their website, including personal email sent by people with xxx@yahoo.com email addresses, your response would be “ahh, a capitalistically foolish choice! Surely the market will punish them! I love America!”?
And aren’t all internet packets sent basically by relay through other people’s computers? What if one of the people who owned one of those big internet backbone sites decided to start applying such a filter to all packets of info that went through his site?
Clearly I’m being a bit alarmist here, and clearly this is now VERY far removed from a single movie theater in Utah. My point, though, is that a truly free democracy can not function without free exchange of ideas. Therefore, anyone in a free democracy who controls part of the medium of exchange of ideas DOES have certain responsibilities as part of that democracy that are greater, and thus more limiting, than just being a capitalist. Now, a single movie theater is a pretty small part of the entire exchange-of-ideas infrastructure. I’m just saying we shouldn’t dismiss issues like this with a “he owns it, he can do whatever he wants, NEXT?” attitude.
Max, could we sum up by saying “With rights come responsibilities”?
I guess it depends on who was in it and what kind of reviews it got. But yes, I probably would want to see that movie, because I could easily relate to it.
Not really, no, as that implies that this is something that applies to all situations in which one has rights. Restaurants have the right to serve nothing but dishes with peaches in them if they want, and I can’t think of any long-term slippery-slope type problems that could come from that. The press (broadly defined) is special, because democracy can’t function without it.
Or am I being too didactic?