I was hoping I wouldn't even have to address this issue, but it now looks as if this lawsuit will actually be going to court, and Oliver Stone himself will be giving a deposition in what stands to be a landmark trial for freedom of speech issues and the discussion lately over filmmakers and their responsibility when they depict violent images in their films.

As you have probably heard, two 18 year olds, Sarah Edmondson and her boyfriend Benjamin Darras, went on a multi-state crime rampage in March of 1995, allegedly after dropping acid and watching Stone's 1994 film, NATURAL BORN KILLERS. During this crime spree, Sarah shot and paralyzed a store clerk in Ponchatoula, Louisiana by the name of Patsy Byers, and Benjamin killed cotton gin manager William Savage in Hernando, Mississippi. The connection to NBK first came to light when well known author John Grisham, who was a personal friend of Savage's, went public accusing Stone of being irresponsible in making the film, and claimed filmmakers should be held accountable for their work when it incites violence. The lawsuit eventually took form though from the family of Patsy Byers, who later died of cancer in 1997. They are using a "product liability" claim in their lawsuit, alleging that Oliver Stone and Time Warner had incited these two teenagers to commit the crime against Ms. Byers through the release of NATURAL BORN KILLERS. At first, the case was dismissed and rightfully so in January 1997 on the grounds that the filmmakers and production company were protected by the First Amendment. However, in May of 1998, the Intermediate Louisiana Court of Appeals overturned the lower court decision, and thus the case returned to Amite, Louisiana and moved forward. The attorneys for Byers's family have requested every single document related to the making of the film, as they attempt to prove that Oliver Stone purposefully meant to incite violence by the making of this still controversial film.

I want to first make it clear that I do not in any way condone the violence perpetrated by these two teenagers. Because like I feel Oliver Stone was saying in NATURAL BORN KILLERS, I am sick and tired of the senseless violence that is continuing to plague this country and this world. I feel nothing but deep sorrow for the families of Patsy Byers and any others killed or injured by these teenagers, and my sincerest condolences go out to these families. But what is solved by bringing a lawsuit against a filmmaker? Oliver Stone did not pull the trigger against Patsy Byers ... those two teenagers did. And that's where the blame must end. Does it really matter what influenced a person to kill? They did it, plain and simple, and anyone who kills or attempts to kill another person is a complete and utter waste of humanity, a person obviously fucked up, no longer a person with any rights, and deserves to get the maximum punishment in return, death themselves. Swift and ugly death, not fifteen years after the fact like what happens in our current system of justice and the handling of the death penalty. Money, time, and energy would be better well served by these people trying to prosecute filmmakers and movie studios in trying to execute convicted killers quicker and more often, perhaps serving as a better deterrent for others to commit crime. They could also better serve the memory of their loved one by funding the placement of more cops on the streets, and more importantly, analyze the real problem behind a person's motivation to kill ... their parents, and what they did in the raising of a child who eventually grows up to commit murder.

From time to time, there has been a continuous argument by some that the violence in movies was partly responsible for influencing some to commit violence. The argument happened when John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan, and said he was apparently inspired by the film TAXI DRIVER. Some wanted to blame director Martin Scorsese and the producers responsible for making that film as being partially responsible for that crime. Numerous other violent films over time have been accused of inspiring copycat crimes. But ever since the tragic murders at Columbine High School in Colorado, there's been an even stronger movement in this country to try to place blame for the country's violence on the hands of filmmakers, and Stone's NATURAL BORN KILLERS, made in 1994, is still one of the primary films cited as a film that glorifies violence, and as such, they want to blame Stone and Warner Bros. for crimes committed by people who say they were inspired to kill by that film.

I have grown so excessively tired of people continuing to make this argument, and it sickens me to actually see a court case going forward that will attempt to fine Oliver Stone and Warner Bros. for releasing a movie. Have people lost their minds? Lately in this country, when someone commits a murder, the media and everyone else immediately starts to analyze "well, what influenced him to do this? Who else can we blame?" How about blaming the murderers???? Or their parents???? Are people honestly trying to say that a filmmaker is somehow responsible for the shooting of a convenience store clerk??? I am willing to bet you anything that all of these crimes which someone tried to attribute to a film influencing them would have happened if the films had not been made. It's way past time for people to realize that films like these are a reflection of society, and crime and murder would continue to take place even if those films did not exist. I guarantee you that those two teenagers would have ended up shooting somebody even if Stone hadn't made NATURAL BORN KILLERS, so any attempt to try to blame the filmmakers for someone else's actions killing someone is amazingly irresponsible and solves nothing except to move our country in a more dangerous position of censoring free speech, which believe me, is one of the greatest freedoms we have in America.

Look, I know that films influence people. Motion pictures are perhaps the most powerful art form for its ability to move people so emotionally. Another Oliver Stone film, the masterpiece JFK, even caused a new government panel to make public more documents that had been sealed in the JFK assassination case, and it even inspired a whole new generation to investigate the case on their own. But saying a film has the power to make a person kill is quite a stretch in my opinion. And it doesn't even matter if a film makes violence look cool, which I don't even think Natural Born Killers did. I can think of many other lesser films that made violence actually look like something fun. But I wouldn't even fault these films, because ultimately, there is something extremely wrong in a person already if they kill someone, and any of these people who blame something like a film for their crimes is a person looking for a scapegoat, another person to blame, and already is a person who clearly do not possess the basic human values that life is precious, and killing another person is simply wrong, and I place the blame for that primarily with the parents.

We learn our first basic values in youth, when our parents have complete control over us. This explains why I can see a film like Natural Born Killers, clearly know that it is a film, and even more than that, realize the message in the film, which has seemed to escape so many people, even to this day. I can watch the movie, and yet I would never even think of picking up a gun and going on a multi-state crime spree or even shooting someone because I thought it looked cool in the movie. On the contrary, I was appalled by what these killers on screen were doing, which is precisely the point. I can do that because my parents taught me right from wrong, and made me value human life. And I watched many violent films and television shows growing up, and wow, somehow I never killed or attacked another person. I grew up watching Arnold Schwarzenegger look amazingly cool in dark shades blowing people away in the original Terminator, I thought Rick Deckard was cool blowing androids away in BladeRunner, etc, etc. But what I did instead was that I played with my friends and acted out my adventures inspired by these films with toy guns, and not one of the friends I played with would have ever picked up a real gun thinking it was cool. Instead we shot at each other with play guns, and we knew what a real gun could do, and I have to believe that came from our influences in growing up ... good parents and good teachers. So I ask any of these people trying to convict filmmakers for inciting violence to explain why I and millions of people watched Natural Born Killers or any of these other violent films and did not go out and kill somebody? If Oliver Stone was purposefully trying to incite violence, why didn't I or my friends immediately head out and kill someone? Why wasn't there mass violence around the country right after opening night of the film? I'll answer it for them ... because we have values, and the few that did commit violence did not, and is it responsible to take the filmmakers to court because a couple of teenagers committed violence, which they most likely would have committed even without the film?

I am amazed why even five years after its release, Oliver Stone's film is the one that keeps getting attacked as being a film that promotes and glorifies violence. Even back when it was released in 1994, some critics and definitely a whole lot of moviegoers missed the entire point of this movie. Natural Born Killers, which in my opinion was the best film released in 1994 and is definitely one of the best films of the decade, is not a film that in any way glorifies violence. Let me try once again to explain what this film is about and why the violence is displayed as it is. Oliver Stone was certainly not attempting to incite violence with this film. Stone was attempting to make a film that made us experience the true nature of violence, in order to see how absurd it is when the media makes killers heroes. For example, we have a whole subculture in this country who worship Charles Manson, who somehow think he's cool. But what if these people actually saw an actual film of the murders committed, and actually saw Sharon Tate's pregnant stomach being stabbed repeatedly? I have a feeling they would feel quite differently after Manson. How about those people that thought the O.J. case was some kind of fun diversion to watch day in and day out? If they could actually see the crime scene or autopsy photographs of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, I doubt they would think it such lightweight fare, and that was Stone's point and message in the film. We have become a society who subsists on the tragedies that come across the airwaves ... and even more horribly, we somehow end up making killers some kind of sick mythic heroes, and I believe that's because we never really see the true reality of the horror they perpetrated. And that's why Stone first made us witness the violence and be shocked by it, which is a rare thing to accomplish nowadays when we tend to be so desensitized to violence. And then once we saw these truly horrific crimes, and see how sick these two people were, then we could appreciate the absurdity of Robert Downey Jr.'s character, a media person who revels in their crimes, and hopes to make himself successful on their popularity. We see how the public responds to this media glorification, and the film is meant to show how wrong and sick it is to make killers our heroes, and also to shed light on the real influences that make people kill, the influences in childhood. We see Mickey's abuse by his father, and ultimately his father's suicide. We see the sexual abuse by Mallory's father, albeit in absurdist circumstances (again to make a point), and realize that those are the influences that warped Mickey and Mallory, and we get an even stronger message. And the film is really a masterpiece of cinematic technique, mesmerizing us with a style that again serves the message of the film ... that violence is sick, and that perhaps the media that glorifies that violence is even sicker. THAT, my friends, is the purpose of Natural Born Killers, nothing more, nothing less, and I sincerely hope that if this trial reaches a jury, that the jury will intelligently examine this case carefully, because a very dangerous precedent will be set if they convict Stone and Time Warner for the crime of inciting violence.