If only governments can censor, it must follow that the Index of
Prohibited Books did not constitute censorship. Clearly.
>>> "Watson, Holly E." <hwatson@jenkens.com> 6/22/04 12:41:38 PM >>>
"I am....(hic)...a....LIBRARIAN!" (Evie passes out. My favorite
movie
librarian of all time. Plus she gets Brendan Fraser.)
Disney did not attempt to suppress the movie. Disney told Moore and
Miramax
as early as last year that they would not distribute it. This was not
censorship; this was a business decision. Even if they had told him
they
would distribute it, and then changed their mind, it still wouldn't be
censorship. Disney is not the government. Disney was not attempting
to
keep Moore's film from being shown; they just declined to distribute
it.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/ae/movies/jump/2617485
Censor: To officially inspect (esp. a book or film) and delete
material
considered offensive. (Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition)
Governments censor; when a private corporation declines to distribute
something, that's not censorship. And when a group of people, whence
whatever wing they come, attempt to convince theatre chains not to
show
something, that's not censorship either. As for "sustained attempts to
discredit" something - that's plain old American freedom of speech. No
one
is restraining people from going to see the movie.
But hey, it's bound to be more interesting than 75% of the programming
at
AALL.
Can we please take this off topic now?
We're going to need some law books - with pictures, this time.--Harvey
Birdman, Attorney at Law
Holly Watson
Jenkens & Gilchrist, P.C.
713 951 3322
-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Trosow [mailto:strosow@uwo.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 2:03 PM
To: Librarycom434@aol.com
Cc: law-lib@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: Farenheit 9/11
Is working against censorship, be it from the government or from a
large
media firm, a core value of librarianship?
Is promoting a diverse mix of cultural goods (not just law reports but
films, books, music, art, etc) a core value of librarianship?
I'd say yes on both questions. The particular circumstances of
Disney's
attempt to surpress this film, and the sustained and continuing attempt
from the right wing to discredit the work because of its content raises
the showing of thisparticular film to one of principle. It was entirely
appropriate for ALA to work out a special showing of the film and it
certainly would be good if AALL could do the same. Association
conferences are not just times to gain some specific performative skill
we can immediately take back for our employers, it is a time to
celebrate the values of the profession, especially with respect to
censorship.
The fact that the film presents a critical view of the Bush
administraiton is besides the point, and the overtly political nature
of
the film should not detract from its importance as an instance of
working against censorship. To hold such would be engaging in the same
sort of content based censorship that we are supposed to be fighting as
a profession.
Sam Trosow
University of Western Ontario
Librarycom434@aol.com wrote:
>And the reason for wanting this particular film shown at AALL? IMHO,
I
think the main reason is not to support michael moore simply because he
has
supported libraries in the past but simply because this particular film
is a
slam on a particular president who is not particularly popular with a
lot of
people on this list (and I include ALA as well). I do not think that
the
AALL meeting is an appropriate venue for this film- how does it
promote
libraries? So what that the director has expressed support for
libraries-
big whoop! Write him a letter and thank him for his support but,
regardless
of what people's opinions are on the war or the president, I do not
think
that AALL should go to the expense of promoting and screening a film
that
mocks a president during a time when our country is at war. I am all
for the
first amendment and his right to make his film- I just disagree that
AALL
should be expending effort and money to screen it. Our annual meeting
is NOT
an appropriate!
!
> venue. If the movie is showing in Boston during the week of the
conference, then by all means, get a group and go see it. Do not make
it a
part of the meeting.
>My 2 cents, for what it's worth.
>Janne
>
>
>
- JENKENS & GILCHRIST E-MAIL NOTICE - This transmission may be: (1)
subject
to the Attorney-Client Privilege, (2) an attorney work product, or (3)
strictly confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this
message, you may not disclose, print, copy or disseminate this
information.
If you have received this in error, please reply and notify the sender
(only) and delete the message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail
is a
violation of federal criminal law.
This communication does not reflect an intention by the sender or the
sender's client or principal to conduct a transaction or make any
agreement
by electronic means. Nothing contained in this message or in any
attachment
shall satisfy the requirements for a writing, and nothing contained
herein
shall constitute a contract or electronic signature under the
Electronic
Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, any version of the
Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act or any other statute governing electronic
transactions.
Beecher Ellison
Law Librarian
Josephine County Law Library
500 NW Sixth Street
Grants Pass OR 97526
(541) 474-5488
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:45:32 PST