Perhaps I need to establish my bona fides by pointing out that I suggested
that attending commercial showings of the film while in Boston for AALL
would be both more useful to Mr. Moore and more respectful of the feelings
of those who disagree, either about what Mr. Moore's film represents, or the
appropriateness of showing it at AALL.
I'm not irritated by the substance of your questions; I'm irritated by your
condescending toneand attempt to use inflammatory examples in order to
pre-empt, rather than facilitate, open and reasonable discussion. Up until
now, everyone's been pretty open and honest about their opinions, and have
not been casting backhanded aspersions on others' motivations in the
discussion.
1) If someone actually defames Mr. Moore or his film, he's entirely within
his rights to sue them, and doing so does not constitute censorship. It is
of course entirely possible to use defamation suits to attempt to silence
unwelcome opinions inappropriately, but Mr. Moore, at the least, has not
done so yet. We don't need to worry about whether or not we are
inadvertantly endorsing Mr. Moore's censorship attempts until and unless he
does something that might at least _possibly_ constitute censorship. Merely
making it clear that, given the organized campaign to stop the film from
being shown (don't believe me? take a look:
<http://www.moveamericaforward.org/MichaelMoore/> ) he'll respond vigorously
to defamation does not constitute censorship or an attempt at censorship, no
matter how hysterical Jack Shafer at Slate gets.
2) You actually have a valid and reasonable point, about this being a film
with an explicitly partisan political goal. This possibly putting AALL's tax
exemption at some risk, if _Fahrenheit 9/11_ were shown, unless it were done
in a way that clearly did not constitute an endorsement of it. (An
alternative would be an organized film program showing a variety of
viewpoints--something I don't think there's any way to reasonably organize
at this late date.) It's a sensible additional reason not to show it at
AALL. You could have made that useful point without the condescenion and
obfuscation, and even without _The Passion of the Christ_ (which would be a
reasonable and obvious entry in that film program we're not going to have.)
Lis Carey
-----Original Message-----
From: T. R. Halvorson [mailto:trh@midrivers.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 11:59 AM
To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: censorship (was "Fahrenheit 9/11")
Friends,
IANALL and I don't play one on TV. Hopefully I have demonstrated that I am
a friend of librarians. As a friend of librarians, I might be able to play
a role in this discussion useful to your profession relating to how you
explain your profession to those outside of it.
The claim is made that showing Mr. Moore's film at the AALL conference is an
exercise of the nature of librarianship because librarianship is concerned
about censorship. By this claim, showing Mr. Moore's film at a librarians'
conference is a matter of principle, the principle of censorship.
For you to succeed in explaining librarianship that way to people outside
your profession, you need to do more than demonstrate that this is an
exercise about censorship. You need to demonstrate that it is an exercise
in principle. There is a nature of librarianship, and there is also a
nature of principle.
Principle is not just supporting or opposing something for a high-minded
reason. Principle is allowing the high-minded reason to benefit both
parties equally. Is it in the nature of librarianship as you explain it to
those outside your profession that censorship is only a high-minded reason
or a principle? This is where you take the risk of losing people outside
your profession and appearing partisan rather than principled.
If the issue is censorship and the interest of librarians in opposing
censorship, then does it matter to librarians as librarians that Mr. Moore
threatens defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film? Would that
be seen by librarians as an attempt at censorship by Mr. Moore? If so,
would that make showcasing the issue of censorship *of* him a less useful
case of censorship at a librarians' conference unless the other side of it,
the censorship *by* him, were also showcased equally? Couldn't Mr. Moore's
pleas for free speech be seen by those to whom you need to explain your
profession as "Free speech for me, but not for thee?" In that case, you
have your work cut out for you to explain why showing Mr. Moore's film
without equally decrying censorship by him is principled and not partisan.
("The [New York] Times also reported that Moore 'has consulted with lawyers
who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or
damages his reputation,' and that he's established a 'war room' to monitor
attacks on the film. Lest anybody miss his threat, the filmmaker repeated it
the same day on This Week With George Stephanopoulos and in the pages of the
San Francisco Chronicle." Jack Shafer, Libel Suit 9/11: Michael Moore's
hysterical, empty threats, Slate, June 21, 2004.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102725/)
The claim also is made that Mr. Moore's film is a documentary. Mr. Moore
himself calls it "an op-ed piece" in an effort to change presidents. (Heat
Is On: Filmmaker Michael Moore Takes on Factual Challenges to Fahrenheit
9/11, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC News, June 20, 2004,
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ThisWeek/Entertainment/michael_moore040620-1.
html)
If Mr. Moore is right about his film, then how would you explain to those
outside your profession why AALL should not have to report the screening as
an in-kind political contribution? In principle, exactly that sort of
proceeding is ongoing presently in my state of Montana. The Billings
Gazette reported on May 27, 2004 about a church in western Montana that
screened a satellite broadcast setting forth the purportedly historically
Christian view of marriage including how that relates to same-sex marriage.
This happened while there is pending in Montana for November's ballot
Constitutional Initiative 96 that, if passed, would ban gay marriage.
Montanans for Families and Fairness filed a complaint with Montana's
Commissioner of Political Practices that the church failed to report the use
of its resources in screening the information as in-kind political
contributions. The church faces fines and the loss of recognition by the
IRS of its tax-exempt status. If Mr. Moore is right that his film is an "an
op-ed piece" to change presidents while the presidential election is going
on, how would the principle upon which gay rights activists in Montana are
acting apply to AALL's screening of Mr. Moore's film? Is it a principle, or
only high-mindedness? If it's a princple, it would apply to AALL and
everyone else. That's the nature of principles. You might try to exempt
AALL from the principle by saying, what we did was in the nature of
librarianship. But the church in Montana says, what we screened is in the
historic nature of our faith. Unless we are going to start having
government-approved and government-disapproved faiths, if the historic
nature of their faith would not exempt them from the principle, then the
nature of librarianship would not exempt AALL from the princple.
It's too bad all these examples are inflamed subjects, because the
inflammation tends to obscure the point the examples illustrate. My point
is nothing about being for or against Mr. Moore or his film, for or against
the President or his re-election, for or against gay marriage. My point is,
how do you explain to those outside your profession that you have a
principle that is equal, and not just high-minded partisanship?
If you feel a tad irritated by my questions, remember, it is only your
friends who will engage you this way. If this cannot be accepted as
friendship, in the nature of a Montanan, I might as well risk the
relationship this further step: Suppose the hypothetical, if it is one,
that Disney or someone did to Mr. Gibson what Disney did to Mr. Moore. You
would then be explaining to people outside your profession why it is in the
nature of librarianship for AALL to screen The Passion of the Christ. Or
would you? Would the principle of censorship be as motivating in that case?
T. R. in Montana
**********************************************************************
This email message and any files transmitted with it are subject to attorney-client privilege and contain confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. If you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or email and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you.
Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, LLP
tel:617-248-7000
**********************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:45:32 PST