I think, to many southerners like myself, the story told in the movie Free State of Jones was part of a hidden history. Growing up this stuff was omitted from our collective education. It's not hard to see why. It's a very ugly and insidious part of history. It's our nations most terrible war from which healing has been extremely longstanding even still 150 years on. However, to achieve a freedom from future tyranny I'd say the movie's timetable works. The time is right because what lingers needs the transparency that allows a fuller healing through the art of the story told. To never repeat the mistakes of the past we must learn, and that involves honesty.So, here we have a very different Civil War drama based on actual events. Instead of centering on great battles it explores the human drama that corrupt elements rather than any particular battle caused. While it's certainly true crimes were committed on both sides, the desperate elements operating within the Confederate movement were particularly ominous. Illegal conscription and seizing of property from those without a voice ran rampant. This is a climate which created many a defection, and here a subversive movement.Newton Knight was turned in an instant and it galvanized what would follow. Knight's defection from the Confederate Army results in his spearheading a group of slaves and small farmers to secede from the Confederacy and form a "Free State of Jones" This is a powerful story which cost many lives ultimately prevailing when the Union won the war. Though it prevailed, the freedom it was promised was slow to come. Afterwards, even with new constitutional rights granted, norms were steeped in old traditions. A messy time for sure which was purposely written out of the collective history. I think this movie serves the basics well without getting mired in diatribes of moralities. Even with the story's slow pace the viewer gets a powerful history lesson. The characters ring true and their life and death struggle is eloquently unraveled.Not since Matthew McConaughey came on the scene in the movie "A Time To Kill" has he had a more important role. I think it's one of his, if not his best, performance. He's not so much acting as inhabiting a man whose voice was silenced long ago. He carries that voice to a whole new generation and it speaks volumes. Perhaps the movie is a bit slow paced and long, even using the clunky device of segueing to a much later date's court case at odd times. But, these are small criticisms that do not take away from a forgotten history. The segueing part even reinforces how so much was to take so long to truly change. Overall, a masterfully constructed important story with great period feel and realism. I recommend it for all as it does entertain and enlighten. Yes, this many years on there's still a powerful lesson we should never forget and continue to seek that all important truest expression of freedom so many have given so much for.
SUAREZ: Let's play a clip from the film. This is a scene where Newton Knight, played by Matthew McConaughey, declares that Jones is a free state, and here he explains the underlying principles behind it.
Free State of Jones movie download in hd
Concluding that the bulk of this traffic was unrelated to official activities and was placing a financial strain on the judiciary, Mecham decided in January to activate two filters on the firewall software that had been installed to identify potential hackers. (His job, after all, is to protect efficiency, not privacy, and he says he was acting with the approval of the Committee on Automation and Technology.) The filters were programmed to record downloads of mpeg movie files and MP3 music files and to generate reports that were sent to Mecham's deputy, Clarence Lee. If Lee decided the files were "inappropriate"--a vague and undefined standard--he would send a letter to the chief judge of the relevant circuit identifying the files and the computers from which they were downloaded and recommending disciplinary action.
The AO appears to have performed its task with enthusiasm. In a memo objecting to the monitoring program, Mary Schroeder, chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, recalled that Lee "apparently felt the information so urgent that he advised the manager of the hotel in which I was staying in Washington that a courier was en route with a high-priority, confidential message for me... Imagine my surprise to discover that use of the Internet to download music or movies had risen to the ranks of a national security issue." Worse, the reports were deeply embarrassing to the employees concerned: A letter Lee sent on March 5 contains a list of all the movies accessed by a particular user between 12:12 p.m. and 1:35 p.m., including /bigtits/bix/mer021/3.mpg and /personal4/fuckmovie/asian/07.mpg.
Rejecting the increasingly common assumption that employees must surrender all privacy rights as a condition of employment, Jones argued that the judiciary should have to show a serious and identifiable problem--involving genuine risk of security breaches, for example--for which blanket monitoring is the only solution. (She noted that the filtering software had discovered only a few dozen examples of misuse among the judiciary's 30,000 employees.) Adopting a formula used in First Amendment cases, Jones also suggested that, in the interest of privacy, the judiciary should adopt the least intrusive, rather than the most intrusive, means of discouraging Internet misuse. She noted that, after local courts were warned in March to discourage employees from viewing streaming audio, the downloading of music and movies dramatically declined. "If exhortation is sufficient to discourage inappropriate use," she asked, "why undertake random snooping?" 2ff7e9595c
Comments