Freelance Journalist in misrepresentation of sensationalisation SHOCKA!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

My original letter to The Age appeared here under "Film ban is a sign of our immaturity".

Some journalist wrote an opinion piece (here) which, to me, seems completely insane and portrays me as some sort of pederast. Bizarre.

― Andrew (enneff), Friday, 18 July 2003 06:52 (twenty-two years ago)

do we presume that Mr Gerrand opposes the banning of so-called snuff movies?

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Friday, 18 July 2003 07:00 (twenty-two years ago)

he obviously missed your point entirely. you gotta be happy with inspiring an entire column though!

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Friday, 18 July 2003 07:01 (twenty-two years ago)

you might offer him a million dollars if he could provide evidence of an actual snuff movie.

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 July 2003 07:19 (twenty-two years ago)

and then offer his editor five dollars to do his job.

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 July 2003 07:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm for the banning of any film whose production breaches Australian law. Otherwise I'm oppposed to all censorship.

― Andrew (enneff), Friday, 18 July 2003 07:33 (twenty-two years ago)

The relentless push for gratification on demand is light years away from a more balanced understanding of maturity that appears to be rapidly disappearing.

OK, so if it's a more balanced understanding of maturity, then why is it rapidly disappearing? Maturity my ass. Some people don't understand Darwin at all.

Thanks for the link to the letters to the editor. Yours is good, and it's nice to read some other perspectives. I'd never even heard of David Hicks.

― JesseFox (JesseFox), Friday, 18 July 2003 07:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, I've heard the Australian film censor is even more pernickety than the BBFC but to what end? I've seen Ken Park and think I have a pretty good idea of Larry Clark as a guy with a fairly strong moral compass, actually (also of course all the relationships in Ken Park are 'wrong'and mostly show the bullying capabilities of people in a position of power over their kids) and if we can read zillions of news stories about abuses of this nature, surely a film containing same is equally viable?

― suzy (suzy), Friday, 18 July 2003 07:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Are you going to write in again? You should.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:32 (twenty-two years ago)

As Nola Martin put it so effectively in The Age (Letters, 9/7): "It's a great pity that Ken Park fans cannot put as much energy into defending the rights of children not to be sexually abused, as they are putting into defending their own rights to view that same abuse in progress."

infuriating.

― g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:39 (twenty-two years ago)

It always bothered me in Bible study when they had to talk about Christ actually ON the cross. Nails through hands? Public starvation? Have a little self-discipline, John/Mark/Matthew/Luke!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 18 July 2003 16:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Tracer you'll love the new Mel Gibson movie!

― amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 18 July 2003 16:17 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.