I was pretty disappointed today after losing. That makes 0 for 2 mock trials in Dr. Coyne's classes for me (and Jeffy. . . and maybe Lance? I don't remember if you were a defense or prosecution witness in the other trial?) Anyways, I thought about our trial quite a bit today and I just wanted to share a few thoughts:
- First of all, I would like give affirmations to Laura and Casey for doing a really good job and being thoroughly prepared for the trial. Many of their points were very relevant and they were very skilled in presenting those points.
- Second, I don't know what the actual results of the case were, but I don't think it should have ever gone to trial. In my opinion, Warner Brothers and Oliver Stone should have been willing to settle outside of court and pay out whatever might be reasonable in a case like this (I have no frame of reference for this. It could be anywhere from $100K to $6 million and I wouldn't know what would be within reason). This makes sense to me because it is blatantly OBVIOUS that the movie is not the only factor that contributed to Ben and Sarah's behavior, but it is also clear that their viewing of this movie influenced them to do what they did. For this reason, Oliver Stone and Warner Brothers should have been willing to extend some type of monetary settlement to the plaintiff.
- If I could do it over again, I would recommend that the defense would talk about how this case makes a stronger argument about gun control laws than it does for regulation of media violence. I mean, how did these kids get guns to go around shooting people in the first place?
- There are several other things I might do over again, but what got me in the end was Laura's rhetorical question about what if this happened to a loved one? Of course i would wish the movie would never have been made. But the problem with that is the fact that if wasn't this movie, Ben and Sarah would have found some other violent flick to be obsessed with and act out. Just like Kip Kinkel and Romeo and Juliet.
Regardless, I'm just glad to to have a little extra credit after getting 82% on the midterm.
I totally agree with everything you said, but once Stone pays out one family he will be stuck paying forever. I also think freedom of speech trumps all and peoplen have the take responsibility for not watching it in the first place. I also thought you were amazing! Could not have picked a better director. And Amen to the extra credit! How is it that I do media stuff all day and I still bombed the multiple choice????
ReplyDeleteBoth sides did an AMAZING job. Seriously. I don't know how the jury came to a decision since both sides had such great arguments.
ReplyDeleteIn the real case the defense won. Freedom of speech and all...
Totally agree with you Rhett, in fact I had the same things going through my head. I'm not sure if I became competitive to the point that I decided the defense was correct or if I really believe it.
ReplyDeleteYou guys all did such a wonderful job! And in real life, here is what happened....
ReplyDeleteJanuary 1997
On Jan. 23, the trial court dismisses the lawsuit against Stone and the production companies, finding that "the law simply does not recognize a cause of action such as that present in Byers' petition." Byers appeals that decision.
May 1998
While Stone and Time Warner contend that the case against them should be barred because their film is protected by the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, plaintiffs argue that "Natural Born Killers" falls within the incitement exception to the First Amendment protection of free speech. The exception states that when speech advocates the use of imminent force or unlawful action, and is likely to produce such conduct, the state may indeed forbid such speech. The appeals court determines on May 15 that plaintiffs' allegations that Stone intended for his movie to incite people to commit violent crimes (thereby falling within the incitement exception to the First Amendment) do state a valid cause of action and the parties should be allowed to go to trial.
October 1998
On October 9 the Louisiana Supreme Court declines to review the Court of Appeal's decision.
I agree with you, it's hard to target one director/producer on this issue. But it's a great case to start thinking about all these issues, and who knows what might happen int he future!! Nice work!
I totally agree with what you said. I had many similar thoughts go through my head. I felt like you guys did a good job putting up a fight though because it would be hard to defend. I do think that Laura's ending statement is what sealed the deal for me (I was on the jury).
ReplyDelete