[Smithy]

Originally Posted by Shaun

With all due respect to her, she isn't allowed to censor art just because of her personal grief. The story was a huge one that has endured 25+ years after it happened.

It's a short film that I wouldn't have heard about without her protests about it - so I don't really understand the implication that the director is set to profit off of a tragedy. Even if it wins an Oscar, can anyone else name a winner of the Short film category...ever? Besides, if she's so against the idea of people profiting off of her son's death then:



Glass houses.

I can totally see why she's upset, though, and would possibly be of the same mindset had it happened to me, but I just don't think you can censor something of public interest just because of your personal attachment to it.

!!!

Part of me think she lives for the attention she gets everytime she can fake some outrage about something new.