| Also, consider Hollywood's schizophrenia. The same studio may release a warm-hearted story about female friends, geared to female audiences; then a vampire movie in which women are mindless objects who court and deserve death. Imagine that it is 1933, and the same German studio has just released two movies, one about a loveable Jewish family, and the other about Nazi supermen who hunt down and justifiably kill Jewish families. What would you think? Certainly, that the studio was pandering to different audiences in each film; but you would also have to conclude that films are conceived and produced in a monstrous ethical vacuum. (But I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know, right?) Movies like Interview convince me that, despite the lack of research evidence, there is a link between them and violence. Although instances of someone seeing a movie, then immediately committing a crime, are relatively rare (and also hard to prove) no doubt there is a feedback loop between popular culture and our values. Movies express values (typically while claiming not to do so) and we learn our values at the movies. A child whose every entertainment informs him that violence is an acceptable way to mediate life, and that certain other humans are objects created for his exploitation, will believe this; and even an adult raised in an entertainment vacuum (if one exists anywhere), his basest instincts called to prominence by the values of the movies he sees, could claim that films are a justification for his beliefs and actions. I am not saying that it is the obligation of Hollywood to make only feel-good movies promoting safe "family values". Instead, I am simply saying that ethics should lead us to refrain from telling certain stories, the sole motivation of which is to earn a dollar by promoting what is basest in our natures. If a Hollywood producer would not teach his daughter that she exists for the pleasure of men, nor his son that women are chattels to be consumed by him, even to their destruction, why would he make a movie that communicates these same messages? Few, or none, are actually proselytizing violence; instead, they are chasing dollars, and there has been a serious decline in standards regarding what we will do to chase dollars. This, somehow, becomes the ultimate justification: do not hold me morally responsible for a message that I do not believe, but am communicating just to make money; in fact, do not regard it as a message at all, for it is only an entertainment. But, in considering whether such an excuse works, let's try another thought experiment: should Julius Streicher, the Nazi propagandist, have been able to escape judgment at Nuremburg if he had proven that his anti-Jewish works were intended merely as entertainments? I have referred to Interview as pornography a few times; let me justify this. Definitions of pornography are notoriously difficult. I define it in part as material designed to induce sexual excitement, which communicates the right of a human being to use physical force and violence against others in pursuit of fulfillment. Though there may be other works which do not fit this definition which are also pornography, this is the only pornography I am certain of. My limited definition is consistent with Mill's view of liberty: the law may only intervene to forbid acts that harm others, not ourselves. Erotic materials should not fall afoul of the law just because they involve me in a dreamworld, or make me lose interest in real life, nor are they immoral in themselves because of their sexual nature. But they may be barred if they directly promote a culture of sadism and disregard for the liberty of others. Half the human race cannot reach its full potential as individuals because it cannot walk alone at night or in deserted places, but must always seek the protection of others. Half the human race has the daily experience of unwelcome, hostile attention from people who would (most of them) never dream of harassing blacks or Jews, but, due to that moral ozone hole, regard gender as a license for intimidation. Who can seriously claim that movies such as Interview play no role in legitimating and extending this behavior? That said, would I outlaw Interview, or put its creators in prison as pornographers? I would not, though I regard them as extremely culpable of doing harm. The reason is that today, the tools we use to analyze are infinitely more precise and sensitive than the tools we use to punish and enforce. Imagine if CAT scans existed for diagnosis, but the only surgical tools were carpenter's saws, hammers or even cannons. Since the law is such a blunt instrument, I would feel no confidence that a law banning Interview would not be turned by the moral fundamentalists to prohibit other works which do not infringe Mill's rule about harm to others. Mill, in his chapter on "Applications", conceded that there is no bright line, and that determining what acts the law may interdict is an act of striking a balance. Liberty is not a binary value; it exists on a spectrum. Where the law may not intervene, Mill freely acknowledges that public criticism may; the danger is when the law becomes coextensive with public morality, and attempts to enforce the beliefs of the majority as the values of everyone. In the United States, we have not needed hate speech laws, because the majority finds it socially unacceptable to engage publicly in race or religious hatred. The effects of this kind of moral evolution, unenforced by law, can be seen in the movies as well. Civil rights laws stop short of banning the portrayal of black people as "Stepin Fetchit" types in film, yet no movie would dare to do this, because of social disapproval. For the same reason, movies cannot be made portraying blacks as the justified victims of unredressed violence. Yet, if the victims are female, no equivalent prohibition exists. The solution is not to extend the pornography laws, but for people, male and female, to close the ozone hole by refusing to participate in, support or see movies like Interview With the Vampire. |