No Period With Brown Mucus

problems "suspect"

The documentary film, "

Presumed Guilty," released in theaters in this country on February 18, has run with good luck, with acceptance by the public. It tells the true story of a person accused of a crime he did not commit and that the judge in turn prescribes 20 years behind bars. A group of lawyers are many irregularities in the trial of the alleged offender and fight for that justice is done. The film is actually a documentary, which shows involved. They are not actors or a plot

Hollywood. It's something that you live every day in this country:
the law works as chewing gum, can stretch as much as money to have the alleged accused . So if you have ever unfortunate enough to have someone accused of something in this country, you must prove your innocence because the prosecution and the laws in Mexico are not based on the fundamental principle that every person is innocent
until proven otherwise
. No, here is to prove that one is innocent. The prosecution seems to be easy. Not have to prove his statement. But the point of this film, whose plot is familiar to Mexico finally, because we know the nefarious scheme of justice that prevails in our country, left the theaters because one of the characters, which accuses the suspect, said he did not authorize his image come out on screen. It should be noted that in Mexico, trials are public, established by the Mexican Constitution, and therefore, the cameras recorded the trial of which we speak were not committing any illegal actions and more, because servants do not have to go asking anyone permission to be recorded. A judge ushered in the appeal brought by the character accuser. Fernanda Tapia, radio host, told me he had interviewed the maverick and that he had said, a little joking tone, as is his style, something like this: " is that my friend, with all due respect, your face looks like any sketch. " The lawyer of this character so bothered, as I said Fernanda, saying " clear, as is dark then it seems to anyone, right? Being dark-skinned in this country is a disgrace ... So things are as they are, etc
. " (And the record, what I say is what Fernanda told me I do not know the exact words of counsel and which issued the driver).

From this, it sparked a scandal in which entry was talk of censorship. It was said that what happened is that the judiciary did not want to watch the movie for obvious reasons, as put in evidence. The judge said he ushered under the affected because she felt that her image was being degraded and not by an act of censorship. Political actors in this country then spoke in favor of censorship, which, let's be honest-never worked anywhere. The film was in theaters, and thanks to this, thousands of people who might not have gone to see her, showed up in theaters. There was no better propaganda film that attempted censorship.
The point is that on Tuesday the judge (I doubt you can say "judge"), gave the final under the complainant and the film had to leave the movie theaters. So civil society took an interesting position: thanks to YouTube, the Internet, that there be no censorship, some documentary initiative went to see it on the network. But here is one of the producers sent a message via Facebook or Twitter, I do not know where he appealed to those who had not done so to take away the film of the network, since the illegality could not be fought with illegality. But this is another translation: " not put on the network, is not see that this film is ultimately a business for those who spend too much money in it and produce it?
. "Because you see, it is clear that making films is expensive and that the lawyers decided to make this documentary did not spend your money only to show the rottenness of the Mexican criminal justice system, but would at some point intend to recover the money invested and if you can, make a profit.

But then here comes a curious difficulty: Who censorship then? are we talking about that the producers want the public becomes aware of harmful or judicial system, only This is a simple business? (which basically would have nothing wrong). If it were to demonstrate and denounce the system of justice that we suffer, the same producers could have put the censored film in any website, but no. The first thing you did was censor censored precisely these demonstrations to evade the power of censorship. Notable case in this intricate play on words.

nice As I said Leonora Cohen, daughter of the great poet Sandro Cohen, the profits of this film would be reborn, an association of lawyers who put these resources to help those who are in jail unfairly. The truth is that it is very convenient now to say this, because considering how the numbers have risen box office this film, as profits are saying that just in monetary terms, it was worth making this documentary. I doubt the producers so much goodness. I do not think they are sisters of charity to all this.
Just today it seems that the Supreme Court or a higher court to the judge that gave entrance to the shelter in question, overturned the suspension of the exhibition of the film "suspect." But take all that happened, it became clear that producers are not as good as they were supposed to before the movie. The dilemma is between what are supposedly wanted to portray the Mexican judicial system and his desire to make money, issue at least by the turn things have worked out, it is a matter for the moment that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.