...of seeing this in the theater really, but now I will for sure. I don't like people telling me what I can or cannot see.

Actually nobody was telling you any such thing. Maybe you have more in common with the protesters than you think.

I agree with the first poster. I had no intention of seeing this film but now that there's a controversy, I'll check out the early showing.

I'm mature enough to make my own decisions on whether to find this movie (or others) offensive. I don't need others dictating my morals.

Yeah, that's it.

Are you calling screwjack retarded?

I prefer "special" thank you very much...

I think the best thing to do would be to decide whether you want to see it based on whether you want to see it. Maybe the protesters are stupid, but spending money on a movie you aren't sure you want to see just to spite them? That's *definitely* stupid. Giving extra money to Ben Stiller isn't much of a victory for free speech.

They aren't telling you that you *can't* see it, they are trying to convince you not to see it. It's hardly censorship. I agree--see it if you're interested, but I wouldn't spend $10 to see a movie just because some interest group told me it was offensive.

I don't know what you are talking about, it's exactly a victory for free speech. A great, noble victory? Not really. But a victory nonetheless. And I applaud the studio for not cutting the offending scenes out. I prefer to make up my own mind and not let a small but vocal group of offended inviduals pressure these folks into censorship. Context is everything and reasonable adults should be able to sort that out for themselves.

And just because I said I wasn't planning on seeing it in the theater doesn't mean I never planned to watch it. Big Robert Downey Jr. fan. Just don't care much for going to the theater these days. Thought I might make an exception in this case to show my support of free speech. So, fuck you very much.

the last time I did this, with The Last temptation of Christ. Even though the movie was terrible, I don't regret it.

The movie was so-so, but the book was great.

screwjack2008:

I don't know what you are talking about, it's exactly a victory for free speech. A great, noble victory? Not really.

Which, in a way, is precisely the point. Freedom of speech which does not include the freedom to say most things that some, or even many, people find objectionable is not freedom of speech at all.

Oh, and it is not required for loss of free speech that the enforcement be from the government carrying a gun. Rather more free speech is lost otherwise than that these days.

... is freedom from the government preventing the exercise of speech, not protection from advocacy groups trying to hurt you financially. Actually, in this case the groups are practicing free speech and I fully support their ability to spread their message. At the same time, I think they are being a bit oversensitive and I'm glad the studio didn't pull the objectional language.

Exactly--these advocacy groups are exercising their own right to free speech--trying to convince people to boycott the movie, and trying to educate people about respect for disabled persons. The studio is exercising its right to free speech by showing the movie. Nobody is coercing anyone. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know whether I agree with the groups or not, but their actions are hardly impinging on anyone's free speech. No government--state, federal, or local--has gotten involved at all, so far as I can tell.

Yay! We are all correct!

Still, I bet money they are attempting to pass legislation based on this. Of course, it won't pass.