Originally posted by XanthosNZObviously I am not a big RCC supporter, but I believe that everyone--- including organizations--- have the right to protect themselves from slander, libel and thinly veiled campaigns.
That adage cuts both ways.
You have the freedom not to go view the Da Vinci Code in theatres. You have the freedom not to buy it on DVD. You have the freedom to boycott in whatever crazy manner you wish. What you do not have the freedom to do is to stop other people from watching it if they so wish.
If a movie came out that characterized tobacco companies as leading the charge to getting people off of their product, there would be no end to the hue and cry of people lambasting their efforts at propoganda. The RCC, however, well, that's just fair game, ain't it?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe analogy is invalid.
Obviously I am not a big RCC supporter, but I believe that everyone--- including organizations--- have the right to protect themselves from slander, libel and thinly veiled campaigns.
If a movie came out that characterized tobacco companies as leading the charge to getting people off of their product, there would be no end to the hue and cry of people l ...[text shortened]... basting their efforts at propoganda. The RCC, however, well, that's just fair game, ain't it?
First of all I would be interested to hear your opinion on the agenda that fictions such as "The Davinci Code" operate under. Certainly the tobacco companies would have an agenda with such an offering as the one you describe. Good publicity, fewer lawsuits, etc.
Second I question how the movie (or book) could be considered "slander" or "libel" - and what this "thinly veiled campaign" is, exactly.
Thirdly - as an organization which is responsible for the murder of a great many people over the years, I see no reason why the RCC should be any less a target than any tobacco company.
-JC
Originally posted by ChurlantFirst of all I would be interested to hear your opinion on the agenda that fictions such as "The Davinci Code" operate under.
The analogy is invalid.
First of all I would be interested to hear your opinion on the agenda that fictions such as "The Davinci Code" operate under. Certainly the tobacco companies would have an agenda with such an offering as the one you describe. Good publicity, fewer lawsuits, etc.
Second I question how the movie (or book) could be considered "sla ...[text shortened]... I see no reason why the RCC should be any less a target than any tobacco company.
-JC
Characterizing the organization as suppressing the 'truth' of goddess-ness, for starters.
Certainly the tobacco companies would have an agenda with such an offering as the one you describe. Good publicity, fewer lawsuits, etc.
And attempting to revise history, of course.
Second I question how the movie (or book) could be considered "slander" or "libel" - and what this "thinly veiled campaign" is, exactly.
Didn't you already ask that one? Well, to add to the first answer, further characterization of the heirarchy of RCC as murderous power-mongers more intent on the aims of their secret cabals than the spiritual nourshiment of their adherents, IMO, seems to undermine the authority of the church. Call me crazy.
Thirdly - as an organization which is responsible for the murder of a great many people over the years, I see no reason why the RCC should be any less a target than any tobacco company.
Then go after those 'facts' in a manner more consistent with honesty, as opposed to--- here I go again--- thinly veiled campaigns.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH[/b]
[b]First of all I would be interested to hear your opinion on the agenda that fictions such as "The Davinci Code" operate under.
Characterizing the organization as suppressing the 'truth' of goddess-ness, for starters.
Certainly the tobacco companies would have an agenda with such an offering as the one you describe. Good publicity, fewer lawsui nsistent with honesty, as opposed to--- here I go again--- thinly veiled campaigns.
The RCC's campaign against women is historically accurate.
The Church's history of iron-clad, militarily-backed power is also accurate - and this is most of what the book centers on. Granted these activities are (hopefully) not so prevalent today, but then the book's focus is less on the RCC itself and more on Opus Dei, which is a very shady organization to say the least.
Additionally, Dan Brown doesn't attack the modern Church so much as a very small number of individuals who act innappropriately in the name of Catholicism. Generally for the sake of plot, of course, and of which no one could consider any more slanderous than a thriller about traitors in the White House might be considered defamation of the actual White House.
There are plenty of books which take a more non-fiction approach to this subject. The Davinci Code is getting the buzz because it has hit the mainstream, introducing existing controversial theory within a fictional plotline that not only makes a decent story, it also makes us consider certain possibilities that some may not want us to think about.
In order to claim slander or libel, you need to be able to prove it. I await your evidence contradicting the violent, misogynistic, and controlling history of the Roman Catholic Church.
-JC
Originally posted by ChurlantThe RCC's campaign against women is historically accurate.
The RCC's campaign against women is historically accurate.
The Church's history of iron-clad, militarily-backed power is also accurate - and this is most of what the book centers on. Granted these activities are (hopefully) not so prevalent today, but then the book's focus is less on the RCC itself and more on Opus Dei, which is a ver ...[text shortened]... ting the violent, misogynistic, and controlling history of the Roman Catholic Church.
-JC[/b]
Are we still talking DVC here? Give us an example of a "historically accurate" claim from the book about the RCC's campaign against women - we can discuss it.
The Church's history of iron-clad, militarily-backed power is also accurate - and this is most of what the book centers on.
Again - give a specific instance from the book - we can discuss it.
Additionally, Dan Brown doesn't attack the modern Church so much as a very small number of individuals who act innappropriately in the name of Catholicism.
Like albino killer-monks in the Opus Dei (which, incidentally, does not have any monks - albino or otherwise).
There are plenty of books which take a more non-fiction approach to this subject.
Like Holy Blood Holy Grail and Templar Revelation - yes, we know. Because these books are non-fiction, fellow historians and academics could slam them so hard you never even heard of them till the DVC came out.
In order to claim slander or libel, you need to be able to prove it.
In a court of law, maybe. But we all know US laws on slander and libel are so skewed I wonder why they even have laws on them at all.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou inability to accept the law really isn't my problem. If it were so easy to harp on slander every time one individual didn't appreciate something being revealed by another individual, rarely would anything of substance ever get done.
In a court of law, maybe. But we all know US laws on slander and libel are so skewed I wonder why they even have laws on them at all.
-JC
Originally posted by Churlant1. It's not "the law" - it's US law. RHP is an international community. There's no reason to accept US laws or US legal interpretations as definitive. Many other countries have more sensible versions of libel law.
You inability to accept the law really isn't my problem. If it were so easy to harp on slander every time one individual didn't appreciate something being revealed by another individual, rarely would anything of substance ever get done.
2. Distinguishing between criticism and slander is not rocket science - it's a matter of common sense. It's a flaw in US legal reasoning that thinks you cannot have one without the other.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat part of 'work of fiction' do you not understand?
First of all I would be interested to hear your opinion on the agenda that fictions such as "The Davinci Code" operate under.
Characterizing the organization as suppressing the 'truth' of goddess-ness, for starters.
Certainly the tobacco companies would have an agenda with such an offering as the one you describe. Good publicity, fewer lawsui nsistent with honesty, as opposed to--- here I go again--- thinly veiled campaigns.
Originally posted by lucifershammer1. If you do not appreciate U.S. law, I still don't believe this becomes my problem. Better?
1. It's not "the law" - it's US law. RHP is an international community. There's no reason to accept US laws or US legal interpretations as definitive. Many other countries have more sensible versions of libel law.
2. Distinguishing between criticism and slander is not rocket science - it's a matter of common sense. It's a flaw in US legal reasoning that thinks you cannot have one without the other.
2. I'm really not interested in a "is not, is too" discussion. I could point out the Church's refusal to allow women a higher role within the organization, you would no doubt have a rebuttal. I could point out the Crusades (used so often as to become a cliche in these debates), you would no doubt have a rebuttal.
Quite frankly I would rather go diving in a lead body-suit than get into a dogmatic argument.
-JC
1 edit
Originally posted by Churlant1. Not really. If you want to deal with the fact that you're dealing with an international community here, you need to stop making judgments on the basis of US laws (especially where they differ from other Western, if not most other, countries).
1. If you do not appreciate [b]U.S. law, I still don't believe this becomes my problem. Better?
2. I'm really not interested in a "is not, is too" discussion. I could point out the Church's refusal to allow women a higher role within the organization, you would no doubt have a rebuttal. I could point out the Crusades (used so often as to become a cli ...[text shortened]... nkly I would rather go diving in a lead body-suit than get into a dogmatic argument.
-JC[/b]
2. Saying that the Church discriminates against women because it does not permit female priests is criticism. Saying the Church burned five million women as witches is slander. See a difference?
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYes - except his descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, secret rituals, history and virtually any other "background" information to the story are, in fact, not accurate.
"All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."
This still allows for a fictitious (imaginative) interpretation of artwork/documents/rituals.