Ban this film?

[B0ycey]

You have no idea on the number of people who may have wished to watch it because it was pulled.
You cannot define free speech on the number who may wish to watch a film
It is not a question of liking a law or not,by your reasoning it should br ok for another bunch of nutters to picket mosques to prevent people worshiping there.
see above.
No of course you don't see the problem,the only circular reasoning here s you stuck on a roundabout based on a failed argument that is ok for them to impose their religious beliefs but would you be ok with others picketing their mosques within the law as you put it to prevent their freedom to worship?

Im a non believer btw.

Cromwell, you do have the opportunity to watch the movie though. You can watch it at another cinema chain. And so can those who want to watch it. But it is clear this movie won't be around in Cinema much longer because people aren't actually going to the cinema and watching it, but that is another issue all together. Nonetheless given that you can watch the movie and still decide to not watch it, I am finding it very confusing that you are being selected on what freedom of speech you find acceptable especially as the means to watch the movie still exists.

Also, Tommy Robinson pickets mosques all the time. I just thought I would inform you as you seem confused.

[Barry]

No Im not . Thats the job of government who we elect to do it in our stead . You do have to elect the right government in the first place though .
That this was muslims moaning about muslims  will mean it will quickly be forgoton but I wasn't talking about confrontation I was talking about going about your day without hinderance

Exactly. It is why we have police forces all around the country. They should be ensuring lawful events can go ahead, and ensuring teachers can continue in their jobs despite threats. However, the Police are a bit busy with someone who got a hurty on the Internet last week, and there's only a finite number of them.

[Streetwalker]

Are you going to stand up and confront them?

No Im not . Thats the job of government who we elect to do it in our stead . You do have to elect the right government in the first place though .
That this was muslims moaning about muslims  will mean it will quickly be forgoton but I wasn't talking about confrontation I was talking about going about your day without hinderance 

[cromwell]

Of course it is relevant. Your choice to go to the movie and be able to watch it solely depends on whether people went out and actually watched it.

You have no idea on the number of people who may have wished to watch it because it was pulled.

They didn't so Cineworld pulled it because it wasn't worth the hassle or as they said the "safety" of their workers putting a film on for a few weeks.

You cannot define free speech on the number who may wish to watch a film

And no, you don't get to chose what part of the law you like and what you don't, it is meant to be objective for a reason

It is not a question of liking a law or not,by your reasoning it should br ok for another bunch of nutters to picket mosques to prevent people worshiping there.

. If someone is within the law, they have a right to express their opinion whether you think that is ok or not. There is a famous quote attributed to Voltaire that goes "I might not agree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it".

see above.

It seems to me that you have circular reasoning going in here. You want to be able to watch a movie you don't intend to watch because you think the Prophet Muhammad is within free speech whilst those who oppose his depiction due to religious beliefs don't have a right to protest? As long as they didn't actually prevent people from walking around them to buy a ticket and watch the movie I really don't see the problem.

No of course you don't see the problem,the only circular reasoning here s you stuck on a roundabout based on a failed argument that is ok for them to impose their religious beliefs but would you be ok with others picketing their mosques within the law as you put it to prevent their freedom to worship?

Im a non believer btw.

[B0ycey]

Rubbish it's irrelevant if I want to watch it or not,an example being I should be able to travel to London go to speakers corner and talk unmolested ,the fact I don't want to has no bearing on it.

Of course it is relevant. Your choice to go to the movie and be able to watch it solely depends on whether people went out and actually watched it. They didn't so Cineworld pulled it because it wasn't worth the hassle or as they said the "safety" of their workers putting a film on for a few weeks as protesters picked outside. And no, you don't get to chose what part of the law you like and what you don't, it is meant to be objective for a reason. If someone is within the law, they have a right to express their opinion whether you think that is ok or not. There is a famous quote attributed to Voltaire that goes "I might not agree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it". It seems to me that you have circular reasoning going in here. You want to be able to watch a movie you don't intend to watch because you think the Prophet Muhammad is within free speech whilst those who oppose his depiction due to religious beliefs don't have a right to protest? As long as they didn't actually prevent people from walking around them to buy a ticket and watch the movie I really don't see the problem.

[cromwell]

They should have been told if they broke the law they will arrested. And my bet is they stayed within the law. But whatever. Cineworld made their decision and it up to you to prove them wrong by going to another chain and watching the movie otherwise you are complaining about not being able to watch a movie you didn't intend to watch.

Rubbish it's irrelevant if I want to watch it or not,an example being I should be able to travel to London go to speakers corner and talk unmolested ,the fact I don't want to has no bearing on it.

[Borchester]

Have you ever been to a protest? They are hardly civil.

I have been to dozens and have rarely seen any trouble.

[B0ycey]

Many years ago got stuck in a national front demo,bunch of apes imo, so scaring the staff is ok then? No it's not the buggers should've been told intimidate and you will be arrested.

They should have been told if they broke the law they will arrested. And my bet is they stayed within the law. But whatever. Cineworld made their decision and it up to you to prove them wrong by going to another chain and watching the movie otherwise you are complaining about not being able to watch a movie you didn't intend to watch.

[cromwell]

Have you ever been to a protest? They are hardly civil. Ultimately they are always about intimidation because you are trying to get your point across. And no, if the protesters stayed within the law, given I am pro free speech then yes, everything is OK in my opinion. People could always just walk around and buy a ticket and watch the movie. The fact they didn't meant the decision was made to pull it. That is ultimately down to capitalism and of course safety as I guess angry heckling must have scared the staff.

Many years ago got stuck in a national front demo,bunch of apes imo, so scaring the staff is ok then? No it's not the buggers should've been told intimidate and you will be arrested.

[B0ycey]

First you say no one was arrested so all was ok then you say cineworld were right on safety grounds because staff were harassed going to work.

No arrests were made so all was ok? that's a fallacy so where protests are made and people were arrested all was not ok.....we both know that's not true.

Have you ever been to a protest? They are hardly civil. Ultimately they are always about intimidation because you are trying to get your point across. And no, if the protesters stayed within the law, given I am pro free speech then yes, everything is OK in my opinion. People could always just walk around and buy a ticket and watch the movie. The fact they didn't meant the decision was made to pull it. That is ultimately down to capitalism and of course safety as I guess angry heckling must have scared the staff.

[cromwell]

People do protest against abortions FYI and we have laws in place to the extent of how far you can protest. I haven't heard of any arrests which means the protests were within the law.

As for Capitalism, my point was if we were talking about a movie selling out multiple screens and high profits then I doubt the movie would have been pulled because it isn't exactly a PR coup to surrender to protests when you are making a lot of money. But the movie wasn't making much at all and staff were getting heckled when going to work. In the end safety was Cineworlds priority and now you need to go out and watch the movie to prove them wrong... or not and proven them right.

First you say no one was arrested so all was ok then you say cineworld were right on safety grounds because staff were harassed going to work.

No arrests were made so all was ok? that's a fallacy so where protests are made and people were arrested all was not ok.....we both know that's not true.

[B0ycey]

Whenever anyone says that they support free speech then, as a rule of thumb, they don't.

That said, the movie is available for download at Pirate Bay, Ext.to and such, but the quality is rubbish. The PR department did a hell of a good job, but sadly, the movie does not even appear to have made it to DVD or whatever the use these days.

You could argue that a user supporting the protesters right to protest is in fact the rule of thumb they do support freedom of speech actually. But that wasn't my point. My point was the decision made by the Cinema chain was on safety and not freedom of speech and that I was highlighting that by explaining that despite being pro free speech this story isn't actually about that even if that is what it appears to be the case until you pull away the layers.

[Borchester]

Was you going to watch it Cromwell?

This has nothing to do with free speech given I am a huge supporter of it and everything to do about safety from my understanding. The firm was unlikely to make much profit, perhaps a few weeks run on a single timeslot and in return you had people protesting at your chain and staff being harassed. It made sense for them to pull it and if you want to make a point they are wrong you best go out and see it at another chain. If not, they did the right thing. Capitalism baby.

Whenever anyone says that they support free speech then, as a rule of thumb, they don't.

That said, the movie is available for download at Pirate Bay, Ext.to and such, but the quality is rubbish. The PR department did a hell of a good job, but sadly, the movie does not even appear to have made it to DVD or whatever the use these days.

[B0ycey]

You're moving the goalposts,first you say it's capitalism now it's freedom of speech.

Abortion is legal in this country should people be allowed to picket medical facilities in order to prevent women quite legally obtaining one?

People do protest against abortions FYI and we have laws in place to the extent of how far you can protest. I haven't heard of any arrests which means the protests were within the law.

As for Capitalism, my point was if we were talking about a movie selling out multiple screens and high profits then I doubt the movie would have been pulled because it isn't exactly a PR coup to surrender to protests when you are making a lot of money. But the movie wasn't making much at all and staff were getting heckled when going to work. In the end safety was Cineworlds priority and now you need to go out and watch the movie to prove them wrong... or not and proven them right.

[cromwell]

Freedom of speech works both ways Cromwell. The cinema has the right to show it and the protesters have the right to protest against it. Clearly they stayed within their boundaries given I haven't heard of any arrests and ultimately the Chain didn't think the few weeks showing and minor profits was worth the hassle. You can complain about that, wave your Charlie Hedbo in the air, whatever. The truth is you were never going to watch it, and neither was many others who are equally outraged. And ultimately that is why the decision was made. But by all means prove Cineworld wrong. Go to another chain and watch the movie. That is after all the only logical reason to be upset isn't it. You are being prevented from watching a movie you most likely would never have heard of it it wasn't for this story.

You're moving the goalposts,first you say it's capitalism now it's freedom of speech.

Abortion is legal in this country should people be allowed to picket medical facilities in order to prevent women quite legally obtaining one?