Thursday, January 24, 2019
A film production company in Minnesota is sued for its content choices under a state public accomodations law (Telescope Media Group)
There is a case in Minnesota where a film or video
production company is regarded as a “public accommodation”. This is the Telescope Media Group in St.
Cloud, and the case is Telescope Media Group v. Lindsey.
Apparently the group emphasizes its own style of Christian
films. It apparently made a video
arguing that marriage is only for one man and one woman, and was challenged
legally under Minnesota’s “public accommodation laws”.
This case parallels Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, bur here
the creative activity is filmmaking.
Now there would seem to be an issue as to whether the
company produces films with “other people’s content” rather than its own (theoretically
that could even have been my book when I was living in Minneapolis from
1997-2003).
One the one hand, if I were to produce my own screenplay (“Epiphany”,
derived from my three DADT books) with a company, where at the end only “the
chose few” get to escape a dying Earth for another planet – could I be pursued
to produce another film where there is no Darwinianism (or Specer-ism) and everybody
survives and lives happily every after?
Theoretically I could be viewed as favoring “Nazi” philosophy materials
otherwise.
On the other hand we expand out and look at cases where on
the Internet, Patreon seemed to be de-platforming conservatives – it wasn’t a public
accommodation (Jan. 16). But now there is information to the effect that it has
come under the clandestine influence of payment processors, who will be
investigated for anti-trust violations by suppressing competition.
James Gottry has a story about the company in the Minnesota
Star Tribune.
When I lived there, IFPMSP was active there and had monthly screenings at Bryant Lake Bowl on Lake Street
in Minneapolis (Josh Hartnett was there sometimes). So the group ought to be concerned about this
case.
The Center for the American Experiment wrote up this case in
an article called “Opposite of Free Speech” on p. 18 of the Winter 2019 issue
of Thinking Minnesota.
The article defended free speech from both sides and did not
oppose same-sex marriage per se.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment