Conquer Club

The UK Government has banned a film about [********]. The Government also banned all media from identifying who had banned it.

The film, titled [*********] is reportedly critical of the government. Films and books that challenge the status quo of the political order are regularly banned in the UK (films and books that criticize individual politicians or parties are usually tolerated by regime security forces, however). Last year a film that criticized [********], titled [********] was also banned by the government. Attempts to show the film outside the UK were foiled when all prints and digital copies were seized and destroyed. The government also recently banned [*********], which provided a frank look at [*********].

Among the many books banned by the UK government was Spycatcher. The ban, however, was lifted after it was published in Australia and the United States and freedom activists were able to smuggle copies into the UK, past security forces.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Article 11:

Freedom of expression and information

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

Since the UK agreed to this charter and since its acts of censorship are a definite violation of Article 11, then can't the EU take the UK to the European Court of Justice?

If not, then the EU Charter and its court of justice are a sham which is used solely for the promotion of well-intended warm and fuzzy feelings. If the EU Charter is touted as evidence that the EU governments are freedom-loving and people-friendly, then such adherents are most likely delusional, or to put it nicely, they place too much faith in the EU Charter.

If we want to be more realistic, then let's examine the UK's "constitution," which isn't codified and is a hodge-podge of diverse rulings, statutes, and laws.

...

After sifting through the internet for 10 minutes on this, it seems that the wide range of laws grant the UK government the discretion it deems as necessary for maintaining its control over the general populace. The self-serving arguments for "national security and interests" come to mind.


So, two questions:

Is the lack of clear and stable rules for confining the powers of the UK government a problem for the people of the UK?

Or, do the benefits of such discretionary power offset the costs, in regard to the people of the UK (and not the state)?

BigBallinStalin wrote:If not, then the EU Charter and its court of justice are a sham which is used solely for the promotion of well-intended warm and fuzzy feelings

quick, stop talking and gaze lovingly at all these beautiful, white babies and the token Gypsy -

saxitoxin wrote:Among the many books banned by the UK government was Spycatcher. The ban, however, was lifted after it was published in Australia and the United States and freedom activists were able to smuggle copies into the UK, past security forces.

...and Tony Benn stood at speaker's Corner reading aloud from it to bewildered passers-by, daring the powers-that-be to arrest him.

BigBallinStalin wrote:If we want to be more realistic, then let's examine the UK's "constitution," which isn't codified and is a hodge-podge of diverse rulings, statutes, and laws.

...

After sifting through the internet for 10 minutes on this, it seems that the wide range of laws grant the UK government the discretion it deems as necessary for maintaining its control over the general populace. The self-serving arguments for "national security and interests" come to mind.


So, two questions:

Is the lack of clear and stable rules for confining the powers of the UK government a problem for the people of the UK?

Or, do the benefits of such discretionary power offset the costs, in regard to the people of the UK (and not the state)?

Some people find that there are more benefits to having a flexible unwritten constitution as opposed to a rigid one...and yes the UK could be taken to the ECHR if there is a strong enough case that Article 10 has in fact been breached. The EU won't act directly but someone, maybe the films producers (after actually reading the article the BBC) would have to bring the case to the EU if they feel their human rights in the form of Article 10 have been violated.. that would be after spending a shit ton of money working their way up through the high court, court of appeal and supreme court in the UK.

Is a country unjust if its monopoly on the legal system financially prohibits many people from seeking justice?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Is a country unjust if its monopoly on the legal system financially prohibits many people from seeking justice?

Are you talking about in purely civil law cases then? If there is a criminal action then the Crown will prosecute. In terms of civil law, I am not too familiar on the practical sides of things, but I believe it only starts to become expensive once you try and reach the appeal stages above the high court and unless there are reasonable grounds for an appeal which focus on a point of law, the vast majority of cases are settled there .

nagerous wrote:The EU won't act directly but someone, maybe the films producers (after actually reading the article the BBC) would have to bring the case to the EU if they feel their human rights in the form of Article 10 have been violated.

Would a member of the general public have standing to bring suit that their right to "receive information" had been infringed by the film's banning? If a UK court refused to grant them standing would the ECHR hear a case that had never been adjudicated in a state-level court?

saxitoxin wrote:

nagerous wrote:The EU won't act directly but someone, maybe the films producers (after actually reading the article the BBC) would have to bring the case to the EU if they feel their human rights in the form of Article 10 have been violated.

Would a member of the general public have standing to bring suit that their right to "receive information" had been restrained by the film's banning? If a UK court refused to grant them standing would the ECHR hear a case that had never been adjudicated in a national court?

That element of the article wouldn't apply in such a case and a member of the public would not have standing. How Europe hears cases is as follows (Nagerous v UK), if I were to claim that the UK had breached my Article 10, I'd have had to go through the full UK courts before taking it to the ECHR arguing that the UK had breached my human rights by not allowing me to watch a particular film . However, in regards to this particular article you would fail in Europe as well. The right to freedom of expression is where there would be a potential case.

If you want a bit of obiter to go with that - here is a quote from Dame Janet Smith that summarises it well “… in my view Article 10(1) does not bear upon the right of access to information that another holds but has not made accessible and does not wish to impart… The first sentence states the principle: ‘Everyone has the right of freedom of expression’. That is what this Article is all about. It seems to me that the second sentence must be read subject to the first. The second sentence says that the right (that is the right to freedom of expression) is to include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by a public authority. Read as a whole, that sentence, referring back to the first sentence, as I have suggested, says nothing about a right of access to material not yet available to the person concerned.”

nagerous wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

nagerous wrote:The EU won't act directly but someone, maybe the films producers (after actually reading the article the BBC) would have to bring the case to the EU if they feel their human rights in the form of Article 10 have been violated.

Would a member of the general public have standing to bring suit that their right to "receive information" had been restrained by the film's banning? If a UK court refused to grant them standing would the ECHR hear a case that had never been adjudicated in a national court?

That element of the article wouldn't apply in such a case and a member of the public would not have standing. How Europe hears cases is as follows (Nagerous v UK), if I were to claim that the UK had breached my Article 10, I'd have had to go through the full UK courts before taking it to the ECHR arguing that the UK had breached my human rights by not allowing me to watch a particular film . However, in regards to this particular article you would fail in Europe as well. The right to freedom of expression is where there would be a potential case.

So the government-funded broadcaster is the only party that can sue the government for the banning of this film. This is a good example of a 1-2 punch where the action of judicial and political organs are coordinated to a common end.

The short-term government strategy to prevent exhibition of the film is to secure banning. This is accomplished through XYZ secret court.

The long-term government strategy to prevent exhibition of the film is to discourage appeal. This is accomplished through the Parliamentary Appropriations Review Committee.

If you want a bit of obiter to go with that - here is a quote from Dame Janet Smith that summarises it well “… in my view Article 10(1) does not bear upon the right of access to information that another holds but has not made accessible and does not wish to impart… The first sentence states the principle: ‘Everyone has the right of freedom of expression’. That is what this Article is all about. It seems to me that the second sentence must be read subject to the first. The second sentence says that the right (that is the right to freedom of expression) is to include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by a public authority. Read as a whole, that sentence, referring back to the first sentence, as I have suggested, says nothing about a right of access to material not yet available to the person concerned.”

In this case, however, does the producer not wish to impart the information contained in the film? The fact that they created the film at all should be evidence of a desire to impart the information (for now ...).

It is not cool and this sort of thing hasn't been a regular occurrence in the UK that is for sure. Appeal should go ahead and it may yet be overturned. You only managed to cite a couple of other examples in your original post, one of them a highly controversial issue, which I am not surprised was banned and the second, the ever famous Spycatcher case, which was back in the 1980s and eventually overturned by the ECHR.

saxitoxin wrote:In this case, however, does the producer not wish to impart the information contained in the film? The fact that they created the film at all should be evidence of a desire to impart the information (for now ...).

Yes.. they have a case, it was produced by employees of the BBC.

nagerous wrote:It is not cool and this sort of thing hasn't been a regular occurrence in the UK that is for sure.

Last year, Unlawful Killing was banned from release until 87 parts of the film in which members of the ruling family were criticized were cut. Of course, I understand the practical necessity of this. When there is no constitutional method to unseat a government official, such as a King or Emperor, public confidence must be maintained in them at all costs.

There were plans to release it in the U.S. instead, however, the filmmaker has gone bankrupt trying to appeal the censorship orders and, earlier this month, it was announced prints of the film would be destroyed as there are no more funds left for court action.

nagerous wrote:You only managed to cite a couple of other examples in your original post,

There are many examples but those, are of course, off-topic to this thread.

nagerous wrote:one of them a highly controversial issue, which I am not surprised was banned

Freedom of speech is only about protecting controversial speech. Uncontroversial speech doesn't need to be protected because it's uncontroversial.

saxitoxin wrote:

nagerous wrote:It is not cool and this sort of thing hasn't been a regular occurrence in the UK that is for sure.

Last year, Unlawful Killing was banned from release until 87 parts of the film in which members of the ruling family were criticized were cut.

There were plans to release it in the U.S. instead, however, the filmmaker has gone bankrupt trying to appeal the censorship orders and, earlier this month, it was announced prints of the film would be destroyed as there are no more funds left for court action.

nagerous wrote:You only managed to cite a couple of other examples in your original post,

There are many examples but those, are of course, off-topic to this thread.

nagerous wrote:one of them a highly controversial issue, which I am not surprised was banned

Freedom of speech is only about protecting controversial speech. Uncontroversial speech doesn't need to be protected because it's uncontroversial.

There aren't many examples, you just re-mentioned the same one you mentioned in your opening article but with a different link. The death of Princess Diana was something very tough for the Royal Family,particularly for her two sons who were still young at the time. As much as I am a fan of freedom of expression you can empathise as to why they may want to suppress a film which paints them as part of a conspiracy. Then again many other countries across the world have also banned films that they don't want their citizens seeing, you just like to constantly rag on the UK.

nagerous wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Is a country unjust if its monopoly on the legal system financially prohibits many people from seeking justice?

Are you talking about in purely civil law cases then? If there is a criminal action then the Crown will prosecute. In terms of civil law, I am not too familiar on the practical sides of things, but I believe it only starts to become expensive once you try and reach the appeal stages above the high court and unless there are reasonable grounds for an appeal which focus on a point of law, the vast majority of cases are settled there .

Well, it can apply to criminal law as well. A government is certainly capable of committing "an act against society," but if the judicial branch is unwilling to pursue that objective, or is merely pandering to the legislative and executive branches, then the responsibility for reining in government falls to the civilians.

If the civilians are financially (and legally in some cases) prohibited from taking the government to court(s), then how can such a country and its monopoly on the legal system be considered just?

nagerous wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

nagerous wrote:It is not cool and this sort of thing hasn't been a regular occurrence in the UK that is for sure.

Last year, Unlawful Killing was banned from release until 87 parts of the film in which members of the ruling family were criticized were cut.

There were plans to release it in the U.S. instead, however, the filmmaker has gone bankrupt trying to appeal the censorship orders and, earlier this month, it was announced prints of the film would be destroyed as there are no more funds left for court action.

nagerous wrote:You only managed to cite a couple of other examples in your original post,

There are many examples but those, are of course, off-topic to this thread.

nagerous wrote:one of them a highly controversial issue, which I am not surprised was banned

Freedom of speech is only about protecting controversial speech. Uncontroversial speech doesn't need to be protected because it's uncontroversial.

There aren't many examples, you just re-mentioned the same one you mentioned in your opening article but with a different link.

So, by implication, if the government censors works of art occasionally, then it's okay?

(I'm not understanding your contention against saxi's finite number of examples.)

nagerous wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

nagerous wrote:It is not cool and this sort of thing hasn't been a regular occurrence in the UK that is for sure.

Last year, Unlawful Killing was banned from release until 87 parts of the film in which members of the ruling family were criticized were cut.

There were plans to release it in the U.S. instead, however, the filmmaker has gone bankrupt trying to appeal the censorship orders and, earlier this month, it was announced prints of the film would be destroyed as there are no more funds left for court action.

nagerous wrote:You only managed to cite a couple of other examples in your original post,

There are many examples but those, are of course, off-topic to this thread.

nagerous wrote:one of them a highly controversial issue, which I am not surprised was banned

Freedom of speech is only about protecting controversial speech. Uncontroversial speech doesn't need to be protected because it's uncontroversial.

There aren't many examples, you just re-mentioned the same one you mentioned in your opening article but with a different link.

Visions of Ecstasy was banned for offending the ruling family's church, Supergrass was banned for eroding confidence in the security forces, The Secret Society was banned for eroding confidence in politicians over illegally shifted funds in the budget - I mean I could really go on all day ...

saxitoxin wrote:

nagerous wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

nagerous wrote:It is not cool and this sort of thing hasn't been a regular occurrence in the UK that is for sure.

Last year, Unlawful Killing was banned from release until 87 parts of the film in which members of the ruling family were criticized were cut.

There were plans to release it in the U.S. instead, however, the filmmaker has gone bankrupt trying to appeal the censorship orders and, earlier this month, it was announced prints of the film would be destroyed as there are no more funds left for court action.

nagerous wrote:You only managed to cite a couple of other examples in your original post,

There are many examples but those, are of course, off-topic to this thread.

nagerous wrote:one of them a highly controversial issue, which I am not surprised was banned

Freedom of speech is only about protecting controversial speech. Uncontroversial speech doesn't need to be protected because it's uncontroversial.

There aren't many examples, you just re-mentioned the same one you mentioned in your opening article but with a different link.

Visions of Ecstasy was banned for offending the ruling family's church, Supergrass was banned for eroding confidence in the security forces, The Secret Society was banned for eroding confidence in politicians over illegally shifted funds in the budget - I mean I could really go on all day ...

And the US have never banned films? The first one I looked up, the ban was upheld by the ECHR so I am not getting your point.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

nagerous wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

nagerous wrote:It is not cool and this sort of thing hasn't been a regular occurrence in the UK that is for sure.

Last year, Unlawful Killing was banned from release until 87 parts of the film in which members of the ruling family were criticized were cut.

There were plans to release it in the U.S. instead, however, the filmmaker has gone bankrupt trying to appeal the censorship orders and, earlier this month, it was announced prints of the film would be destroyed as there are no more funds left for court action.

nagerous wrote:You only managed to cite a couple of other examples in your original post,

There are many examples but those, are of course, off-topic to this thread.

nagerous wrote:one of them a highly controversial issue, which I am not surprised was banned

Freedom of speech is only about protecting controversial speech. Uncontroversial speech doesn't need to be protected because it's uncontroversial.

There aren't many examples, you just re-mentioned the same one you mentioned in your opening article but with a different link.

So, by implication, if the government censors works of art occasionally, then it's okay?

(I'm not understanding your contention against saxi's finite number of examples.)

I never said it was ok... in fact I said it was not cool. My contention against saxi's finite number of examples is this point here. The thread title is "Latest film banned in UK is ...."

This implies that there have been many many films that the UK have been banned from seeing. I am curious as to his focus on the UK? Why not China? Ukraine? Or Ireland, which banned Monty Python's Life of Brian for 8 years in the 1980s (where most of Saxi's examples seem to be coming from). I can merely come to the conclusion that his focus and yours is purely for trolling purposes.

nagerous wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

nagerous wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

nagerous wrote:It is not cool and this sort of thing hasn't been a regular occurrence in the UK that is for sure.

Last year, Unlawful Killing was banned from release until 87 parts of the film in which members of the ruling family were criticized were cut.

There were plans to release it in the U.S. instead, however, the filmmaker has gone bankrupt trying to appeal the censorship orders and, earlier this month, it was announced prints of the film would be destroyed as there are no more funds left for court action.

nagerous wrote:You only managed to cite a couple of other examples in your original post,

There are many examples but those, are of course, off-topic to this thread.

nagerous wrote:one of them a highly controversial issue, which I am not surprised was banned

Freedom of speech is only about protecting controversial speech. Uncontroversial speech doesn't need to be protected because it's uncontroversial.

There aren't many examples, you just re-mentioned the same one you mentioned in your opening article but with a different link.

Visions of Ecstasy was banned for offending the ruling family's church, Supergrass was banned for eroding confidence in the security forces, The Secret Society was banned for eroding confidence in politicians over illegally shifted funds in the budget - I mean I could really go on all day ...

And the US have never banned films? The first one I looked up, the ban was upheld by the ECHR so I am not getting your point.

I don't know, have they?

This is a thread about book burning and film banning in the UK, not a dick-measuring contest.

As for the ECHR supporting the ban on Visions of Ecstasy, I suppose that just reinforces what BBS said earlier, that the ECHR is a beauty pageant that exists to legitimize censorship restrictions.

Because the topic is the UK. Perhaps, the UK was selected because there's a good numbers of Brits here, so the thread is guaranteed to get attention. I don't think censorship in China would lead to conflicting emotions between national pride and free-speech rights in the fora, so why choose China? Why not the US? Maybe because saxi wants the feedback of Brits on their own country, so a thread about the US won't achieve that goal...

If you wish to talk about world-wide or US censorship of cultural products, then why not start a new thread?

nagerous wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

nagerous wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

nagerous wrote:It is not cool and this sort of thing hasn't been a regular occurrence in the UK that is for sure.

Last year, Unlawful Killing was banned from release until 87 parts of the film in which members of the ruling family were criticized were cut.

There were plans to release it in the U.S. instead, however, the filmmaker has gone bankrupt trying to appeal the censorship orders and, earlier this month, it was announced prints of the film would be destroyed as there are no more funds left for court action.

nagerous wrote:You only managed to cite a couple of other examples in your original post,

There are many examples but those, are of course, off-topic to this thread.

nagerous wrote:one of them a highly controversial issue, which I am not surprised was banned

Freedom of speech is only about protecting controversial speech. Uncontroversial speech doesn't need to be protected because it's uncontroversial.

There aren't many examples, you just re-mentioned the same one you mentioned in your opening article but with a different link.

So, by implication, if the government censors works of art occasionally, then it's okay?

(I'm not understanding your contention against saxi's finite number of examples.)

I never said it was ok... in fact I said it was not cool. My contention against saxi's finite number of examples is this point here. The thread title is "Latest film banned in UK is ...."

This implies that there have been many many films that the UK have been banned from seeing. I am curious as to his focus on the UK? Why not China? Ukraine? Or Ireland, which banned Monty Python's Life of Brian for 8 years in the 1980s (where most of Saxi's examples seem to be coming from). I can merely come to the conclusion that his focus and yours is purely for trolling purposes.

1. Many people already know Ukraine is a totalitarian state. Therefore, there is no purpose served by pointing that out.

2. Many people continue to believe the UK has a rights regime of ethical superiority to the Ukraine. Therefore, there is a purpose served in pointing out the things pointed out in this thread.

I don't get it... how can you even ban a film in 2012?

If the film gets banned in UK, and the filmmakers can't export the actual physical films away from UK... why don't they just upload the film on the internet, host it on a non-UK based server? There's nothing the UK government can do about it. Or just torrent the film around until there's a zillion copies it around the world, even if the UK government were to try to have ALL of the copies deleted - they'd never succeed in it.

I mean, wouldn't it be better to at least get the film out there for the public to see than have it be forgotten and never be seen by anyone? So what gives here?

natty dread wrote:I don't get it... how can you even ban a film in 2012?

If the film gets banned in UK, and the filmmakers can't export the actual physical films away from UK... why don't they just upload the film on the internet, host it on a non-UK based server? There's nothing the UK government can do about it. Or just torrent the film around until there's a zillion copies it around the world, even if the UK government were to try to have ALL of the copies deleted - they'd never succeed in it.

I mean, wouldn't it be better to at least get the film out there for the public to see than have it be forgotten and never be seen by anyone? So what gives here?

Money.

natty dread wrote:If the film gets banned in UK, and the filmmakers can't export the actual physical films away from UK... why don't they just upload the film on the internet, host it on a non-UK based server? There's nothing the UK government can do about it. Or just torrent the film around until there's a zillion copies it around the world, even if the UK government were to try to have ALL of the copies deleted - they'd never succeed in it.

The filmmaker would be violating the law and he would be jailed for years in one of the ruling family's prisons.



He also knows that there is a good likelihood things could be worse than prison and he could (1) "commit suicide" [wink wink],



or, (2) lock himself inside a suitcase by accident and suffocate [wink wink] -