What is Digg?170 Comments
- libiddybill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+105Look at the mechanism of control - we offer taxpayer money or incentives at taxpayer expense to artists, but you have to abide by our rules - we merely want to review your movie script before we christen you with taxpayer money. Surely that's reasonable, you must agree. Now, just hand us that script.
Government money is poison. It's a trap. Avoid it at all costs. As proof I offer every publicly funded housing complex in every major city - welfare traps of despair, controlled by govt money. - InSeverance, on 10/12/2007, -34/+115***** Republicans
- jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -16/+86Sweet, I get to see a movie where a Cowboy george bush "Hunts down the terrorists where they hide",
Shows all muslims the way to jesus, and gets flowers thrown at him in the streets. - Gir53457, on 10/12/2007, -3/+54These people aren't MY Republicans. These are the new Republicans, they take powerful central government and kick it up a notch to full blown fascism.
- bigdt87, on 10/12/2007, -4/+44"serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value"
wtf? who is the government to decide what has artistic value? - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -28/+56"***** Republicans"
OH PLEASE!! This could just as easily be Hillary... or Pelosi... get off your high horse stupid.
The only people who consistently vote for Liberty are (duh) Libertarians. - jstohler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30Amazing -- this should be a front-pager. Not that this guy has any real power, but that he's dumb enough to voice his totalitarian beliefs in public. Diggers, drop this guy a line:
http://www.philberger.com/
(919) 733-5708 - gallagherFTW, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31this guy isn't conservative keep that in mind. republicans are becoming disgusting, last time i checked socialism wasn't a fundamental value of the party.
- Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25Why should they be investing in the films in the first place?
Am I the only one who sees the premise - that the state government is paying back up to 15% of production costs for movies - totally absurd? I, for one, would be pissed off if my state started using my tax money to fund entertainment - and yes, I do think that government funding of sports is abhorrent. - kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25Laisez-faire ftw!
- DooM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15They're NOT investing in films - they're investing in bringing people to their state who will employ their citizens, spend boucoup bucks while they're there, and have to pay taxes on any salaries anyone makes while onsite. It's the same reason why cities want sports teams, the Olympics, etc. and are willing to cut deals to get them -- they don't care about the Olympics, they care about the money they make by having it there.
- DooM, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18The problem is that who decides what is offensive..? Is it a movie with a gay character..? Is it Harry Potter because it ticks off fundamentalist Christians..? Is it anything that questions authority..? As a taxpayer I don't want 'Phil' to be 'The Decider'. That job is taken - and it's already a disaster.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Exactly. This is only an issue because of the subsidies that his state gives to films. The real answer here is to get rid of the subsidies! Government just loves to say, "Look! There's something we don't like. Let's fix it by expanding government power." and then turn around and in their next breath and say, "Gee, looks like our fix isn't perfect. Let's fix the problems created by our fix by expanding government power even more."
Lather, rinse, repeat. - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Seriously, WTF is the government doing giving away a "filmmaker incentive." Clearly, we don't need additional laws and regulations to deal with this, we need less government. It sound to me like the situation is:
We tax you (take away your money against your will using the threat of imprisonment)
We offer to give you some of your money back if you do exactly what we want you to do
If you don't do what we like, you get none of your money back
We're not taking away your freedom of speech, we're just giving you an "incentive" to do what we want. I hope someday people realize that taxation and freedom are inversely proportional. - SonofMaug, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14It makes me sad to see that each time my home state takes a step forward (Google server farm setting up shop, new investments in Red Hat, Research $ in the Research Triangle Park.) Guys like this yahoo send us a bunch of steps back.
- albrad84, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16It's really not as bad as the headline makes it out to be (which shocked me when i first read it). Basically, he's just saying that if a movie filmed in north carolina wants some financial help from the state government, the script has to be reviewed first. I don't blame the government for not wanting to sponsor movies that the taxpayers (who are paying for part of the film) would find obscene
- xinit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11This isn't an entirely accurate headline.
This guy wants to make script review required for only a select group of films that the government is funding (indirectly). This "would apply only to films seeking the state's lucrative filmmaker incentive, which refunds as much as 15 percent of what productions spend in North Carolina from the state treasury."
An investor in a film has every right to refuse based on the script or the casting or whatever they want... they can choose to fund things based on whims or political interests. That said, I'd say that the govenment should fund NO films, as that would be the best way to remove any question of bias. - Dundasbro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"OH PLEASE!! This could just as easily be Hillary... or Pelosi... get off your high horse stupid.
The only people who consistently vote for Liberty are (duh) Libertarians."
But it isn't Hillary or Pelosi. It's the republicans, and that is why in this instance they are ***** dogs. If Hillary or Pelosi suggested it then they would be the dogs, but they didn't so how about we blame the republicans for it? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17What's wrong with the *****-covered Mary?
- SonofMaug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8You don't understand. If the government had their way, all we would get is ***** pablum like "Dukes", instead of thought-provoking and intelligent films like "Idiocracy" (didn't see it? maybe that's because the studios didn't want you to!) If government gets it's hooks deeper into the film industry, all we'll get is Dukes, Doom, and more mind-numbing ***** of it's kind.
- AllnightChemist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11philbe@ncleg.net
Here's his bio, too: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/members/viewMember.pl?sChamber=S&nUserID=64
...just look at him. - jpowell180, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I am a Republican and I say:
A. - Commercial films should never receive funding from Taxpayers and
B. - Commercial films should never require approval from the Government.
This is something for the citizenry to handle (by not buying tickets, protesting, forming action groups, etc), not the government. - gstringjihad, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"we offer taxpayer money or incentives at taxpayer expense to artists"
why are they offering taxpayer money unless it benefits taxpayers? if it benefits taxpayers, why should the government prevent taxpayers from receiving that benefit based on the government's opinion of the quality of a given script? I'm sure the senator would get along with Leni Riefenstahl, were she still producing films. - greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Ok... I dont want the government involved... the government ***** everything up...
BUT
The current state of ***** films could benefit from some oversight... to keep ***** like "dukes of hazzard" from being made... - Angelowner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Ok... I don't want the government involved... the government ***** everything up...
BUT
The current state of ***** films could benefit from some oversight... to keep ***** like "dukes of hazzard" from being made..."
Are you joking me... There is NO upside to the government reviewing film scripts It wouldn't stop ***** ass movies... This is Just another way to take away the right of free speech. If you don't want to see the questionable content in a movie DON'T ***** GO. Read a review or watch some trailers before you spend 15 bucks on a ticket to a movie that sucks or that has some content you disapprove of... What the hell is wrong with people today "OMG a movie has a scene about child rape. OMFG I'm gonna flip out and try to pass a bill so that this never gets to screen or that it will never happen again..." What a bunch of retards... Don't agree good for you... Don't go see it. I'm sure that there are people who WANT to see this movie Hell I'm pretty damn sure someones gonna win an award for the movie. Just because some right-wing bible thumping senators don't want to see doesn't mean that you should remove it from the public.
Makes me ***** glad I'm Canadian and a liberal... - Vision2098, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@Gir53457:
"These people aren't MY Republicans. These are the new Republicans, they take powerful central government and kick it up a notch to full blown fascism."
If you're voting for the party elsewhere, they're certainly yours. And as well if so, freaking stop it already, yeesh. - jeff419, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is *****, the incentive is like a kickback for making a movie in the state, assuming they're getting it back on taxing all the money made by businesses in the state who cater to the movie producers.
That's how the govt. weasels it's way into something it wants to control. It subsidizes an industry until it is completely dependent on the govt, then they make the people who want to continue to receive the money play by rules they set. These programs are started with the eventual plan of taking control of an industry.
This ***** is chess, not checkers, catch on people! - vanadium77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This is PRECISELY why we shouldn't be subsidizing art.
Once the government subsidizes art, it has the power to control it, not unlike holding a carrot before a rabbit. - DooM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You're right - it's not all or nothing. There's a huge difference between coming to a consensus that a particular film is a problem and having the state vette all scripts - I'd be happier watching the state decide not to incentivize filmmakers than insert themselves in the creative process. That's a slippery slope to propaganda we don't need.
And in this case, I also haven't seen the film, but I've read enough reviews to doubt that I would find it offensive. Distrubing? Yes. But art SHOULD deal with difficult issues - reality is difficult and ugly. Even in North Carolina. - strabes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Why should taxpayers HAVE to pay for anything that helps no one but the filmmaker, even if they don't object to the content? How is this different from the government just giving money to any corporation, as long as the corporation is generally favored by the public? This is absolutely ridiculous. The government needs to go back to protecting citizens from criminals, and that's it.
- killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8He only wants them to review scripts that get state funding. Frankly, I don't think ANY state funding needs to go to something like this. Since when is the government in the movie producing business?
"That system, said state Sen. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, would apply only to films seeking the state's lucrative filmmaker incentive, which refunds as much as 15 percent of what productions spend in North Carolina from the state treasury.
"Why should North Carolina taxpayers pay for something they find objectionable?" said Berger, who is having proposed legislation drafted." - jayesbee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5RealAmerica said: ...[T]he government shouldn't fund things that are objectionable to the vast majority of its constituents."
Ummm... You mean like the Iraq war?
Tax money is spent all the time in ways in which a tax payer may object. It would be nice if we could apportion our tax dollars according to our values and priorities, but we don't have that luxury. The only way we really have to do this is by electing public officials who share our values.
NC is not funding films out of the goodness of it's heart, or because it wants to support independent film making. It is offering incentives to film makers to lure them to the state so they will spend money there and inject money into the economy, ultimately generating tax revenue for the state. No different than the tax breaks and incentives offered to other industries.
The proposal smacks of censorship and I hope it fails. But NC has the right to pass such a measure, and film makers have a right to avoid NC like the plague. That's the free market at work. - Kyle660, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Where does the 1st Amendment grant you the right to receive government money, douchebag?
You mean our say in how our tax money is appropriated, also a douchebag? - kris2lee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It sounds very familar to me. Wait. This is how the things were in Soviet Union. ***** Americans, do you at all remember what the freedom (of speech) is?
Goverment controlled media, arresting people without cause, torture, secret camps, poverty. Which country it is? Soviet Union in 30s to 50s, ruled by Stalin? Or US?
9/11, Terror, Red level, Terror, 9/11, Weapons of mass destruction, 9/11, Give away all your rights! - EricSchC1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Gir53457:
You're obviously too young or ignorant of your own party's history to remember people like Joseph McCarthy.
@LadyBeGood:
You're obviously don't know what you're talking about. Artists, not liberals don't want taxpayer money or government involvement if there's strings attached. This is not a trait exclusive to liberals, its a trait exclusive to artists! Besides, the point of art is to express yourself, not express what the government wants you to say. Otherwise that's called propaganda. If you're suggesting we adopt a practice used in communist dictatorships, who's side are YOU on??? - jayesbee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5RealAmerica said, "It's about the state funding things that improve life for the people in the state - attracting business etc. It's not about encouraging the development of artists."
Some people believe that art is one of those things that improves life. Sometimes artists may need support. You may think that this is a frivolous use of public funds, but what's wrong with stimulating the economy, increasing the tax base, and supporting artistic expression? That seems like a win/win. - Leomarth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Stop having the state of North Carolina reimburse 15% of the costs to movies. Problem solved. Government has no real business in dolling out tax dollars to private companies for subsidies anyway. Heck, I'm sure you'd make the citizens happier if you dished that 15% back to them in the form of a tax rebate.
- nipplash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And here I thought The Republicans were for "Smaller Government", I am shocked.
- strabes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Tax dollars shouldn't go to movies at all. Ever. The government has proved itself quite adept at doing things that they say will create jobs but really do nothing except expand government power. For example, the gross abuse of the Takings Doctrine to provide GM with land for a factory.
- jeff419, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The government should NEVER, EVER be in a position to set criteria on speech. A movie is speech.
The whole program, and any like it should be ended. Honestly, Govt. subsidies are all *****. We get high fructose corn syrup in everything, even though it kills us, instead of regular sugar, because there are tariffs on sugar and subsidies for corn.
That's just one example, there are thousands more. - teamgwho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I see. so then by your logic we should cut off the flow of tax breaks to big corporations too then? cause we are talking TAX BREAKS. cause thats the one thing republicans love is cutting taxes and giving tax breaks to big business.
- dslemons, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Being an indie filmmaker and having some personal knowledge how this works - films being produced do not get tax payer dollars, they do get tax incentives in the form of a tax break. Lets say film A takes place in the south, the film makers are faced with a couple options - either shot the whole thing on sets or shoot on location in the south. If there are multiple sets that need to be built to replicate a southern town it is almost always easier and cheaper to go to the south and shoot with local crews and existing structures. Sounds logical? Why build a new town, when we could just use this one for a few weeks? Having decided that there are going to shoot on location and are going to spend million dollars for film A, the state governments offer tax breaks to hopefully allure that money to their economy.
- evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4you know what ive never understood. republicans are THE party of big government and controlling everything nowadays. yet the so called libertarians always seem to align themselves closer to the republicans than the democrats when what they are supposed to stand for is WAY closer to how the democrats are. so many faux libertarians out there..
- d03boy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We should get to review the government then.
- supermanred, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4...and the fuhrer will approve ALL films. All directors who do not comply will be shot on the White House lawn.
HOLY ***** IT GETS WORSE EVERY DAY! FRIGGIN NAZIS!!
I better keep an eye open...Im in Canada...which could be World War 3's Poland! - amphetameme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Heh...if you don't hate something your party is doing, regardless of Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian, you're probably not paying attention ;D
- TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moran
- UCFMark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4As a Republican, I have to say, I think this is ridiculous. Republicans are supposed to be about minimizing government, not passing laws to control society.
- reed311, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Have you been alive during the past 6 years?
- DSGalvin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Berger has not seen the movie. He said his opinions were formed by what he has read about it."
enough said..... -
Show 51 - 100 of 167 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is