Does freedom of press mean that the press such as cinema can lie in a film(i.e. The Blair witch Project)?
357784
First of all, I don't think movies count as press as they are for entertainment purposes only and are assumed to be fictional unless stated otherwise.  They aren't required to write "NOT REAL" over their posters in big red type.  However, they are required to say if it is based on an actual event or person at some point for legal reasons.  \n\nSome movies are more innovative than others in telling a story.  This is when the audience has to use it's intelligence.  For example, a non professional film featuring the disappearance and possible deaths of a group os students wouldn't be allowed to be shown in theaters.  It would probably be used as evidence for an investigation.
752523
I was questioned about my TV viewing habits years ago, they mailed me a little booklet and I was supposed to write what I was watching in the appropriate timeslots. I am not sure about movies but sounds like something they'd do. However, I wouldn't give out any personal information if I was you. Never give them your address or social security number, stuff like that.
354961
Regardless of your politics people, the answer is YES.  The media needs stories to fill 24 hours worth of 'news.' The media frequently "reports" what the governments reports, says, and spins.  People at all levels of government (federal, state, local, school) spend time every day trying to spin a media message in a particular way, in the same way that PR companies and corporate companies cast their messages.  How, when, what, and why a story is reported is generally structured by others in government (and business) with the public blissfully unaware.  Fox simply characterizes with a conservative bent.
834232
The FCC lays down rules about what can and can't be broadcast. If the station is sent over the air, rather than via a paid cable channel, the broadcaster must modify the movie to meet the requirement.\n\nThe company will usually get a modified print from the distributor, or can modify it themselves. These arragements are approved with the film distributor, and disclaimers are always aired (modified for content, to fit the screen etc).\n\nThe companies you mention did not have any relationship with the distributors. They modified the movies without permission, which is a copyright violation.\n\nThis is not a first amendment issue, which protects your right to speak about anything you please - but rather about copyright and licensing of content.
1010994
I have no problem with covert operations but I also have no problem with freedom of the press.  I think the administration (whichever party is in power) should be responsible for policing leaks and avoiding press coverage.
31088
The "truth" is very subjective and usually a lot more complicated than the media pundits and headline readers would lead you to believe.  Print media in general does a better job of being thorough.  Your best bet is to get your news from multiple sources and critically evaluate as best you can what you are being told and by whom.
104110
Hey dude\nMovies also show people committing murders ! If you can believe that these people are really murdered during the filming, then you can also believe the 'sex' scenes being real too !\n..It is all a 'make-believe' illusion, buddy.
373011
Having the right to speak your mind should not mean that you escape the consequences of speaking your mind.  It's a double-edged sword.  For instance, you can say what you like about someone, but if you say something untrue about someone else, that person can sue you -- that's their right.  Being able to lie about someone without fear of consequences would be a bad thing.\n\nAlso, you can say what you want, but you have no right to expect someone to support what you say if they don't agree with it.  For instance, if you write an article for a magazine slamming a politician, and the owner of the magazine doesn't agree with it, he doesn't have to let you print that article using his money and his resources.  he may *choose* to allow you to do that, but he's under no obligation to -- the owner of the magazine has a right to freedom of speech, too, and your right to say what you want should not infringe on his right to use his property (the magazine) as he sees fit.\n\nAs a side note, this is not censorship.  Private citizens have the freedom to decide how their resources and property is used; only the government can be accused of censorship.\n\nSo I'd say that freedom of speech should be unrestricted, up to the point that it infringes on another person's rights (and you have no right to not be offended, so so-called 'hate speech', a chillingly Orwellian concept, does not apply).
830838
Certainly. Most of it is history that has been recorded elsewhere, just told from a number of perspectives.\n\nIt deals with people known to have existed and things that they are known to have done.\n\nHowever none of the supernatural occurrences have been supported except one. That is the destruction of the Tower of Babel. There is a ruin that fits some of that story in that its destruction shows evidence of the release of a great deal of power of some kind. In Iraq if Saddam didn't tear it apart.
199254
Distributing it is being an accessory to the molestation involved in its production, and creating more demand for it to be produced.  However, I believe US courts have ruled repeatedly that simulated child porn (either with actors age 18+ pretending to be younger, or using technology to simulate children that aren't there) to be protected as free speech (because no children are used/harmed in the production).  It's still creepy as hell, though.
402445
I am not sure of the lie.. but if you have proof you didn't say it let people know.  And depending on the lie.. you have a right to say whatever you want.  Constitution says so.
466256
FREEDOM of press is there so nothing wrong is expressing ones views in a magazine or newspaper.The people in general if they are educated should read it in the right perspective
614911
Only if it sparks your interest to research a topic. Novels and most movies are fiction and all facts must be taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by research.
1069782
Yes and no,\n\nTelevisioin and newspapers are not censored for content, meaning the that media can tell whatever story they want to tell. However, we do have certain decency standards implemented by the goverment, so the media cannot use swear words or show pictures of nude people. Other than that they are free to print whatever they feel like.
340832
I'm an Independent. I'm not sure what you mean by the "point" of the movie. It is a movie. Yes, it is a recreation of real events, but it is still just a movie.\n\nI don't have any problem with it being made. If it upsets some people, they can ignore it. If it helps people cope with still-lingering pain from that awful day, great.\n\nIt's interesting that the first post to this question was a Republican once again using 9/11 politically. What a shocker.
633291
Do you really think that this kind of movies can effect a whole religion . You see movies on mermaids , ghosts , supermens , but do you believe them ? So why to believe a mere movie which is just made for the purpose of entertainment . All the movies are frictional and no one can claim of any movie being a true thing . So just dont allow such stuff to effect your line of thinking . A single movie or a novel can not effect the thousands of years of religion and purity .
1066385
Excellent question? It becomes illegal if you have something to hide. If democracy, freedom of speech etc. were really applied, then people would not be jailed for questioning -e.g. Zundel who questioned the holocaust has been jailed. Why?\n\nThank you for your much admired bravery.