Bong Hits 4 Hollywood

Variety reports that MTV and Paramount are planning to make a movie of the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case. I initially imagined a cross between Gideon's Trumpet and Dude, Where's My Car, but apparently the creative team wants to take the story in a different direction:

"The heart of this story is the relationship between a father and son," [producer Michael] Shamberg said. "Frank Frederick was an insurance adjuster facing the loss of his job if his son didn't back down."

Frederick, who'd often discussed the importance of First Amendment rights with his son at the dinner table, would not force his son to drop the case, and he was fired from his job.

I'm guessing the film ends on a down note: Desperate for cash, father and son sell their story to a sleazy Hollywood producer.

Comments

[Episiarch]

If they end it Braindead/Dead Alive-style, I will watch it.

That sort of insane fusion is about the only thing that could get me excited about any Hollywood film anymore.

[Dan T.]

I'm guessing the film ends on a down note: Desperate for cash, father and son sell their story to a sleazy Hollywood producer.

How is that a down note? Free trade, etc. etc.

Everybody wins.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

The great thing about this is how the guys boss exercised his FREEDOM OF CONTRACT and fired this guy because his son stood up for his rights. It's great because now this guy will be freed to explore the MAGICAL MYSTICAL MARKET which guarantees freedom and autonomy at ALL times and find other gainful employment. Man, this libertarian way of seeing the world sure clears up any problems!

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I wish my employer and I could exercise our autonomy and freedom of contract by having him end our purely voluntary relationship. Ah heck, why be selfish, I actually wish this upon the many hard core economic libertarians here. May the market bless you and us all with such destructive dynamism :).

[Jonathan Hohensee]

I can imagine this movie being a silly North County/Shooter type straw man argument where the boss calls the dad into the office, sits the guy dad and tells the Dad
"I know that you've been working for us for 16 years, that you are strongest worker, and that this place would fall apart without you, but the harmless little prank your son played brought enough shame to our company that we have to fire you unless you drop the lawsuit."

[J sub D]

I'm guessing the film ends on a down note: Desperate for cash, father and son sell their story to a sleazy Hollywood producer.

I want my MTV 15 minutes!

[Lamar]

"Frank Frederick was an insurance adjuster facing the loss of his job if his son didn't back down."

Sounds like his son did him a favor.

[Jonathan Hohensee]

I think that the best approach to this movie would to be make it about how just because someone is a crusader for liberity, it doesn't mean that you don't deserve your ass to be kicked, at least a little bit.

[J sub D]

Some things are worth falling on your sword for. Others, you just bite your tongue. This was the latter. Insert standand libertarian disclaimer #3 here.

[Pig Mannix]

Some things are worth falling on your sword for. Others, you just bite your tongue. This was the latter.

Yeah, but somehow I'm glad that he didn't. And hopefully he realized a big enough payday from selling his story that he'll be able to buy and sell his sniveling coward of an ex-boss....

[Dan T.]

Of course, I'm curious as to how "a story" can be bought and sold.

[P Brooks]

Maybe they can get Angelina Jolie to play the principal, and turn it into a story about dedicated unionized school administrators who just want to keep our great nation safe from the threat of independent thought.

[P Brooks]

I bet they can work in a story line about corrupt businessmen plotting to raise the temperature of Mother Earth and clear-cut Alaska to make it easier to strip mine coal there.

[negatore]

"Of course, I'm curious as to how "a story" can be bought and sold."

Dan T.

You're obviously not a Seinfeld fan. Kramer sold his story to J. Petermen and Petermen used Kramer's story as his own. You should check it out. Hilarious.

[Randolph Carter]

I fell in mud!

[emerson]

Ya didn't!

[Taktix?]

How is that a down note? Free trade, etc. etc.

Everybody wins.

In the real world, yes, absolutely. Happy endings and all.

But as far as literary criticism goes, that really fucks up the narrative.

[prolefeed]

Mr. Nice Guy -- Would you really want to keep working for some pr**k who threatens to fire you unless you coerce your son into giving up his First Amendment rights over an incident that has nothing whatsoever to do with your actual job? Why would you want to work for someone that unreasonable and authoritarian?

But, yeah, workers own their jobs and have an inalienable right to keep them unless they set fire to their boss' desk and put it out by peeing on it and [insert standard liberal clueless-about-economics boilerplate here].

[Taktix?]

Insert standard libertarian disclaimer #3 here.

*Pages through the Official Libertarian Handbook, 65th ED*

Uhh, J Sub D, what was SLD #3 again? I tore out that page to roll a joint...

[Mr. Nice Guy]

You don't have to argue that people own their jobs to realize that coercion ain't just physical force. Regulating one person's freedom (the boss) to give dozens or hundreds more autonomy (the workers) via regulation on issues like this, lessening coercion, is entirely reasonable for those who really value "liberty" for all.

[J sub D]

Uhh, J Sub D, what was SLD #3 again? I tore out that page to roll a joint...

IIRC, (I started the BBQ with my copy), "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend ...", Something like that, anyway.

[J sub D]

The boss is a wuss! If I'd needed the job, I'd have told the kid to suck it up while looking for other employment. Then I'd have quit w/o notice, leaving behind no clues that could be used to pick up the unfinished tasks. Hell, I'd consider organizing my fellow workers just for spite!

Workers have power without government infringing on the employers rights.

[R C Dean]

Regulating one person's freedom (the boss) to give dozens or hundreds more autonomy (the workers) via regulation on issues like this, lessening coercion, is entirely reasonable for those who really value "liberty" for all.

See Road to Hell, Paving of.

[R C Dean]

May the market bless you and us all with such destructive dynamism :).

I've been determined as surplus to requirements twice in my life (apparently, the requirements for lawyers who tell senior management exactly what they think is approximately zero). Both times, I would up with a better position within three months.

So, yeah, its worked for me.

[Mike Laursen]

Mr. Nice Guy, do you agree with the part of the libertarian way of seeing the world where people should have the right of free speech? We're all in agreement on that part, right? That's the most important thing.

[Mike Laursen]

My personal experience with wrongful termination laws:

1) In my industry, they never fire anybody. Instead, they have layoffs once in a while and just happen to lay off the people they would have fired. Unlike individual firings, the company doesn't have to explain how they chose which employees to lay off.

2) I was on a jury on a civil case, where a vice president of a company claimed to be wrongfully terminated. By the end of the trial, the only facts that remained unmuddied was that the plaintiff was an asshole, the CEO of the company was an asshole, and the expert witnesses were assholes. If it had been one of our options, the jury would have sent the whole lot of them to prison. A year later at Christmas time, I saw the plaintiff driving around in a new Jaguar he probably bought with his awarded damages; he still looked like a miserable asshole.

[R C Dean]

As anyone who has ever been in business knows, hard to fire means hard to hire.

This is one of the great unintended consequences of civil rights laws applied to the workplace - there isn't a manager out there who doesn't hesitate, just a little, before hiring someone in a "protected class", because she knows that if they don't work out, they might just turn into a pain in the ass to get rid of.

The net result has to be a drag on hiring protected classes.

[BakedPenguin]

...there isn't a manager out there who doesn't hesitate, just a little, before hiring someone in a "protected class", because she knows that if they don't work out, they might just turn into a pain in the ass to get rid of.

At my last job, I worked with a woman in a wheelchair. She knew they would have to go through hoops to fire her, so she basically stopped working at some point. It took them a few years after this before they had enough of a paper trail to fire her.

[crimethink]

You don't have to argue that people own their jobs to realize that coercion ain't just physical force. Regulating one person's freedom (the boss) to give dozens or hundreds more autonomy (the workers) via regulation on issues like this, lessening coercion, is entirely reasonable for those who really value "liberty" for all.

You mean liberty for the many, not for all. But, I'm guessing that you're in the many, so you're not concerned about little details like that.

And, as RC alluded to above, it's really not a good idea to punish people for creating jobs.