Julie Hilden has so missed the point I later plan to direct her towards the point in an email because it is so pathetically sad.
Interestingly, the episode itself indicates that its creators know well that they may be defaming Cruise, and they know of his litigious history. The joke disclaimer preceding the episode announces that "All characters and events on this show -- even those based on real persons -- are entirely fictional." At the end of the episode, the Cruise character threatens to bring a suit (not on the gay issue, but in defense of Scientology) "in England" -- which lacks a formal equivalent of the First Amendment. And all the credits at the end use the pseudonyms "John Smith" and "Jane Smith."
More famous then the Tom Cruise lawsuits ( and moral brutal) are the Church of Scientology lawsuits against anyone who messes with their brand. The fact she doesn't know this fact and tries to make this all about Tom Cruise please come out of the closet..... is just sad right there. She is trying to go for the gay pop... but "In The Closet" has become a multipuprose term
(Sorry gay people... straights have been stealing "In the Closet" from you)
Such as the R. Kelly Rap Opera garbage that was also parodied in the scene which had R. Kelly "In the Closet: (which could also allude to R. Kelly's alleged Sexual proclivities with Junior High students... or it could just have to do with his video.. you don't know)Tom could be "In the closet" about his acting.. how he really isn't a good actor and has gotten along on his looks for a long time. And some could argue the same about Travolta (though not as well IMHO. Tom could be "In the closet" about the raving lunatic beliefs of scientology.
You just don't know how he is In the Closet....Also going back to the gay theme being in the closet is about shame forcing you to hide from the truth. The reincarnation of L.Ron Hubbard told him he wasn't very good thus being in the closet could be about comparable states of shame.
These deep themes could all be in play here. But Sadly Ms. Hilden needs it to be gay because that titalates.
On this logic, the First Amendment gives breathing room to creative works even when they fail in their goals. Thus, here, the "South Park" episode is protected even if its literalization of the "in the closet" metaphor won't make a single viewer chuckle.
Its called a running gag... you see by stressing "Tom Cruise please get out of the closet" you can make his being in the closet funny.
She is trying to asses the comedic value of something in a way as slipshod as her legal analysis of what libel is.
Now what is funny are these words from Tom Cruise's attorney
Cruise has chosen, in the past, not only to challenge allegations that he cheated or lied to cover up his alleged homosexuality, but also to directly challenge allegations that he is gay. In 2001, Cruise's attorney Bert Fields was quoted saying to E! Online, that "[Cruise] is a great respecter of homosexual rights, but he's not gay, and he's ready to prove this in court. Tom is tired of it and it hurts his children. It's something that will be there forever. And damn it, he's going to stop it." (Emphasis added).
Ok How. I am pretty curious how Tom is going to prove he is hetrosexual in court.
Will Tom be having sex with a woman for the judge to see.... I am sure some one in the porn industry is working on this idea as I speak ( check the video stores tommorrow)
Now... we of course here go to the ole "gay bashing" line.
If you focus on the gay thing to much... it may not mean your gay but it certainly means your not straight.
I really do want to see Tom Cruise prove he is hetrosexual... I think this could be single handedly one of the funniest things I have ever seen in my life. Now.... Tom cruise can easily prove he did not have sex with some dude... but that is hugely different then proving he is not gay.
Heck I've only had sex with one person in my life... But I am not sure that can prove I'm not homosexual....
but her thesis..... so carefully placed at the bottom of this flushable law article
In my view, a "straight-person's privilege" isn't the kind the courts should be protecting. Indeed, a friend of mine who's a practicing First Amendment lawyer believes this so strongly, he won't, as a matter of professional ethics, argue a case for libel-by-claim-of-homosexuality in court. He'd rather be on the right side of history, and decline.
Thats right.... Libel shouldn't be about what damages the person, it should be about what Society (should in the idealistic leftist-ivy leaugest way) believe in.
Hmmmm how can she get attention to her drivel of opinion barely wrapped in analysis
Why take something with lots of controversy... why like south park.
And get some one who sues a lot.. like Tom Cruise
and make a narative to express her political beliefs as a matter of scholarship.
I am not a Lawyer but I can see a garbage analysis when its given to me
and this is garbage
No comments:
Post a Comment