[ceilingcorner]

Your comment is misleading.

DeNiro continued: “In the 15 years since the Tribeca Film Festival was founded, I have never asked for a film to be screened or gotten involved in the programming. However, this is very personal to me and my family and I want there to be a discussion, which is why we will be screening “Vaxxed.” I am not personally endorsing the film, nor am I anti-vaccination; I am only providing the opportunity for a conversation around the issue.”

[nickthemagicman]

“Tribeca, as most film festivals, are about dialogue and discussion. Over the years we have presented many films from opposing sides of an issue. We are a forum, not a judge,” a spokeswoman said in a statement on behalf of the festival earlier this week.

GOOD. If you're correct your viewpoint will stand up to dialogue.

[jfengel]

That seems like an odd thing for them to say, since they are judges. They "curate" the entries that come in, and then celebrity judges award prizes.

They're not really a discussion forum. They're mostly about just showing things. They have some panels, but mostly any discussions kicked off by films are arranged by the attendees for themselves.

There are truly unjuried festivals, but they're much less high profile because the quality will be very uneven. That's not what Tribeca is about at all. So I don't know why she would say that.

[nickthemagicman]

They are the people who run the show. I'm sure they know better than us!

[jfengel]

I'm certain they do. So I'd be curious to know what's on their mind when they said that.

The cynical view would be that they were looking to stir up controversy, and pretending they weren't. A less cynical view is to take them at their word, even though it's not entirely truthful since they do, in fact, regularly exercise their judgment. There are thousands of filmmakers who would have loved to have been in the theater that day instead.

I don't think that "It's an alternate viewpoint therefore it should be heard" is a very good argument, just because there are a lot of viewpoints that are Just Plain Bad. You pick and choose. I'd be curious to know why they chose this one -- because they did make a choice, and if they're saying otherwise, that's curious.

[nickthemagicman]

Choosing doesn't validate the idea.

Choosing just gives the idea a platform for discussion.

If it's a truly terrible idea then it will be laughed out.

Many ideas that turned out to be significant in the world were considered crazy by society. Flight, The idea of hand washing, etc.

Also, many terrible ideas were considered acceptable ideas: tobacco, lobotomies, etc.

Discussing the idea is what revealed the truth.

Just because an idea is considered 'fringe' in society doesn't mean it's wrong. Ideas deserve a platform for discussion, they may turn out to be right.

Apparently, some ideas have gathered enough steam and collected enough initial evidence to deserve discussion.

[ceilingcorner]

Yeah, I don’t get the hostility. If an idea is bad, then let it be revealed as bad. Banning people just creates more conspiracy theorists.