NationStates Jolt Archive

WARNING: this thread contains mature content. It is about a movie that has violated a publication ban involving one of Canada's worst murder cases. The links go to places that contain information related to the crimes and charges. If you do not wish to read it, please stop here.

In case your wondering, yes, I am VERY irritated at Hollywood over their newest "film/movie", Deadly.

It glorifies one of Canada's worst murder cases in history, involving a couple who committed, amongst their crimes, sexual assault. It is the story of Paul Bernardo and his "victimized" wife, Karla Holmolka. It is a recount of the murders of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy.

The American media had, during the trials of the tried and convicted Bernardo and Holmolka, violated the publication ban surrounding the trial, which alone was bad enough. But now, the shallowest, most exploitove arm of the American media has taken the reigns and is putting forth this travesty of a piece!

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1111576933483&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154]Families want to see Bernardo film.

Read the article. Yes, it highlights the fact that this film is sympathic to that fucking bitch Holmolka, who is, goddamn her fucking worthless hide, is being released! Oh, I hope someone slaughters her worthless ass! (Yes, I know, stop, breath deeply, but, if you knew the extent of their crimes, you'd be breathing fire too). At least her sick bastard of a husband hasn't a hope in hell of walking free!

Now, so that if anyone wishes to reply, they can do so intelligently.

I'm saving you time and providing some references.

Karla Homolka (http://www.answers.com/topic/karla-homolka)
Scarborough Rapist (http://www.answers.com/Paul%20Bernardo)
Outline of Publication Ban Laws in Canada (http://www.law.ualberta.ca/alri/ulc/96pro/e96h.htm)
Bernardo and Holmolka serial killer and rapist team (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serials/bernardo/bernmain.htm)

If you want information on the publication ban, you can use google. I'm just providing something for those who don't know the background on this.

I wish I still had my paper; I had written an OAC research paper on the ban for this trial.

The article asks for a login.


I know of these killers, and I find it rather annoying that they would create a movie sympathetic to one of them.

Here's another good source on them:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/bernardo/index_1.html?sect=1

The article asks for a login.

http://www.bugmenot.com

Don't worry about getting angry over a subject like this...shows that you're still human.

And yes I agree with you that the bitch deserves no sympathy, and hope that the movie bombs in the box office. Call it "poetic justice".

Just create one. Use an old hotmail account.

I didn't want to do a TRA and piss off Myrth.

How low can you go?

It's like an onion isn't it, just when Hollywood hit's rock bottom they find another layer to peel back. Sorry about the mixed metaphors.

Despite my usual contempt for mass media corporations I'm still amazed anyone would have the piss poor taste to produce a movie 'sympathetic' to Holmolka!! What line are they taking, "I'm just a poor repressed wife hopelessly trapped in a relationship with a cruel monster! He made me rape tortue and murder those girls!!"

Bottomless contempt for those vultures in Hollywood. What's next, do you think? My guess is that they'll write something sympathetic to those cat-killing "artistes" who walked with time served incidentally.

Repressive canadian speech laws don't mean shit in the US, which means they aren't circumventing anything. That aside, yes the people who thought this up are assholes.

http://www.bugmenot.com
That's awesome!
Thanks Fass!
:fluffle:

Didnt Hollywood release a movie a year back glamorizing some other serial killer? I think Charlize Theron was the star.

Hollywood doesnt have any sense of right and wrong, that is fine. But I have to laugh when the Democratic partty embraces Hollywood. Dont they understand that this hurts not helps them.

Repressive canadian speech laws don't mean shit in the US, which means they aren't circumventing anything. That aside, yes the people who thought this up are assholes.
Thank you for proving you didn't read the link explaining what a publication ban means and does. And, yes, the publication ban applied to ALL media outlets that were present at the trial.

I heard that Flick grew up to be a porn star. But I didn't know he wasn't allowed to write books.

I heard that Flick grew up to be a porn star. But I didn't know he wasn't allowed to write books.
Wow, talk about appropriate misplaced humour! :D Good job.

Thank you for proving you didn't read the link explaining what a publication ban means and does. And, yes, the publication ban applied to ALL media outlets that were present at the trial.
A codified but non-exhaustive list of factors that might be considered in making such a ban "where is it necessary for the proper and orderly administration of justice" might include the following:

(i) the proper maintenance of order and the administration of justice;

(ii) the protection of informants/witnesses;

(iii) ensuring the integrity of ongoing criminal investigations;

(iv) the protection of the accused's right to a fair trial;

(v) the encouragement of witnesses to come forward and testify; and

(vi) the right of the public to access material before the courts, subject to any of the enumerated considerations.

With respect to all discretionary orders,

i) A court of competent criminal jurisdiction would be given the authority to exercise its discretion to impose a ban on publication of any materials required for the proper maintenance of order and the administration of justice.

In determining whether a publication ban is appropriate in given circumstances, the court would be obliged to consider whether:

(a) such a ban is necessary in order to prevent a real and substantial risk of fairness of the trial, because reasonably available alternative measures will not prevent the risk; and

(b) the salutary affects of the publication ban outweigh the deleterious affects of the free expression of those affected by the ban.

ii) The onus for establishing that such a ban is necessary would be on the party requesting such a ban.

The trial is over. It can in no way be affected by anything now released. If the trial was still going on it would indeed apply even in the US. But the trial is finished and therefore if the publication ban continues it is in direct violation of The US's 1st amendment. Just because your government is basically ignoring it's own charter in allowing the ban to continue does not mean ours will.

It is done out of respect as well. While there is the right to freedom of speech, we also have a right to privacy.

You call it censorship, but, it is also respectful of the victims and their families. How would you like it if let's say, something happened to you and your family, and the media feeding horde got its hands into the pie, how would you feel? How would like it if they kept in vading your privacy? Writing about your affairs, digging up bones, and opening old wounds?