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.