Filmmaking has always been treated as an art form that expresses the vision of actors and directors in the same unique way as painters or authors. Departing from that traditional view, the National Film Board of Canada has committed itself to a quota system that will require half of its publicly funded movies to be directed by women. The policy should raise serious artistic objections as being detached from the art form and artistic vision.
There is a troubling case out of New York where U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino of Albany threw out a lawsuit alleging the denial of free speech after the government banned a food truck from a vendor program because its name was an Italian slur. The slur is “dago.” It appeared on the food truck “Wandering Dago” owned by Andrew Loguidice and Brandon Snooks. I am half Sicilian and I may share that heritage with Judge D’Agostino. However, while we may both view the slur in the same way, we may see free speech protections differently. Judge D’Agostino wrote a comprehensive and interesting opinion that carefully looked at the governing precedent over forums and free speech. Moreover, it is important to note that Judge D’agostina was applying cases that she felt compelled this result as a lower court judge. She ultimately found no protection for barring a truck based on the sensibilities of others. The case is Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, 1:13-cv-1053 (MAD/DJS), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26046.
As China continues its crackdown on dissidents and journalists and lawyers, it appears to be slipping back into its old habits from the cultural revolution. Chinese censors have issued new regulations banning all depictions of gay people on television. Other depictions banned as “vulgar, immoral and unhealthy content include content showing extramarital affairs, one night stands and underage relationships as illegal on screen. The new censorship regulation also extends to “smoking, drinking, adultery, sexually suggestive clothing, even reincarnation.”
Egypt’s parliament voted overwhelmingly to expel Tawfik Okasha from the legislature for the apparently unforgivable sin of inviting the Israeli ambassador in Cairo for dinner. The picture of him meeting with the ambassador took that opposition into a full rage. Now remember that Egypt has full diplomatic relations with Israel, but Okasha’s merely having dinner with the ambassador resulted in a vote of 465 out of 490 legislators supporting this expulsion.
We have another case of a professor who was put under scrutiny for her postings on social media. Joy Karega, an assistant professor of “rhetoric and composition” at Oberlin College posted bizarre claims on Facebook blaming Jews and Israel for 9/11 as well as ISIS. The college however has decided that such postings are protected and it is correct in doing so. However, once again, there is a concern over how colleges treat such controversies depending on the views and conclusions of the academics or students.
This week offered another insight into how little it takes to be blocked in China. Ren Zhiqiang, a highly influential businessman and commentator, offered a mild criticism of President Xi Jinping’s campaign to tighten control over state-run media. The result was the the government blocked him from Internet sites for spreading “illegal information” and having a “negative impact.” The result of being blocked by sites like Sina Corp.’s Weibo and Tencent Holdings Ltd.’s QQ was the loss of access to more than 37 million followers on Weibo alone. Of course, his complaints are meritless since the chief censor of China announced recently that there is no censorship in China . . . and he should, after all, know. He is the chief censor.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has continued his assault on basic freedoms in his country with an assault this month on the decision of the Constitutional Court. The Court had the temerity to disagree with Erdoğan and rule that the imprisonment of two prominent journalists for a report on alleged illegal arms transfers to Syria was a violation of their rights. Erdoğan has announced that he will simply ignore the ruling of the court because he disagrees with it. Erdoğan has become increasingly bold in his crackdown on opponents and civil liberties — relying on his base of Islamic organizations.
We previously featured beleaguering Missouri Professor Melissa Click who generated controversy by obstructing a student journalist and calling in “muscle” to push him away; denying his first amendment rights. She was later videotaped in another incident yelling at police officers while blocking a protest at a homecoming parade.
After the former incident, she was charged with assault.
The Malaysian High Court has issued a ruling that confirms the virtual eradication of free speech rights in that country, one of our closest allies in Asia. The Court upheld an absurd edict from Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi banning T-shirts with the word “clean” in Malay as a national security threat. That’s right. A t-shirt calling for clean government has been declared a threat to national security and High Court Judge Muhammad Yazid Mustafa has declared that there is nothing preventing the government from barring such speech. The t-shirts were a response to reports that nearly $700 million had been deposited in the personal bank account of Prime Minister Najib Razak (left).
Federal and state courts have handed down a virtually uniform line of rulings protecting the right of citizens to film police in public. That is until the February 19th decision of U.S. District Judge Mark Kearney. Kearney was only put on the federal courts in 2014 by President Obama but has written his first major ruling in curtailing the rights of citizens under the First Amendment. Kearney used that there is no First Amendment right to film police unless they can show that they are challenging or criticizing the police conduct.
After excerpts from Ahmed Naji’s novel Istikhdam al-Hayat, or Using Life, were published in a literary newspaper, a reader brought charges against the author and said that reading sexually explicit passages caused him distress and heart palpitations. An Egyptian court has now sentenced the author to two years in jail for public indecency. Notably, Naji was first acquitted by a court in Egypt on the basis of free speech, however the prosecution appealed. He was retried and convicted.
While the Obama Administration has staked a great deal on moderates in the Iranian regime, it is hard to see much progress in the Islamic Republic. That was made clear this week with the news that forty state-run Iranian media outlets have jointly offered a new $600,000 bounty for the death of British Indian author Salman Rushdie. Ayatollah Khomeini, the First Supreme Leader of Iran, issued the fatwa against Rushdie on charges of blasphemy for his novel The Satanic Verses on 15 February, 1989. Ayatollah Khomeini’s successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in 2005 in the hateful fatwa remains in full force not just against Rushdie but anyone associated with the book. The fatwa captures the continuing problem that Islamic countries have with basic free speech and free exercise rights.
In an interview with the Washington Examiner, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai expressed his worry of the waning of free speech rights in American. The suppression of dissenting speech on college campuses and Twitter he believes are prime examples.
“I think th[is] poses a special danger to a country that cherishes First Amendment speech, freedom of expression, even freedom of association. I think it’s dangerous, frankly, that we don’t see more often people espousing the First Amendment view that we should have a robust marketplace of ideas where everybody should be willing and able to participate.
Largely what we’re seeing, especially on college campuses, is that if my view is in the majority and I don’t agree with your view, then I have the right to shout you down, disrupt your events, or otherwise suppress your ability to get your voice heard.”
The text of the First Amendment is enshrined in our Constitution, but there are certain cultural values that undergird the amendment that are critical for its protections to have actual meaning.”
Filmmaking has always been treated as an art form that expresses the vision of actors and directors in the same unique way as painters or authors. Departing from that traditional view, the National Film Board of Canada has committed itself to a quota system that will require half of its publicly funded movies to be directed by women. The policy should raise serious artistic objections as being detached from the art form and artistic vision.
