The legality of a pro-enemy movie being shown in U.S. movie theaters

[Velocity]

Suppose that someone decided to make a pro-Nazi or pro-ISIS movie and have it shown in US movie theaters.

Now - completely disregarding for now the issue of whether theaters would even be willing to show it or not - would this, currently, under US law, be legal? Does this fall into the category of “aiding and abetting the enemy” by way of propaganda?

(The Nazis are pretty much a done and gone enemy, but Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc. are very much active threats.)

[UDS]

It would be constitutionally-protected free speech, surely?

[Derleth]

@UDS

It would be constitutionally-protected free speech, surely?

Of course. It might have a tough time finding a theater to run in, but that’s because theaters are private businesses aiming to make a profit. Lots of movies don’t get shown in theaters at all, or more than once, at a thinly-attended premier.

[Go_Arachnid_Laser_1]

@UDS

It would be constitutionally-protected free speech, surely?

Unless we are talking about very subtle films, both would probably be considered hate speech.

[Bear_Nenno]

@Go_Arachnid_Laser

Unless we are talking about very subtle films, both would probably be considered hate speech.

What does that matter? You can consider it whatever kind of speech you want. It doesn’t change the fact that it is constitutionally protected.

[Sunspace]

Wouldn’t these restrictions apply only if there was a formally-declared state of war, and the movie was favourable towards the declared enemy?

[UDS]

@Go_Arachnid_Laser

Unless we are talking about very subtle films, both would probably be considered hate speech.

That’s going to depend, obviously, on the content of the film. But you could make a “pro-ISIS” film that basically said “ISIS are a bunch of psycho shits, but they are the forseeable reaction to such-and-such a stand, or these actions, or those policies, of Western powers/the Syrian regime/whoever, and we need to tackle that problem” - a “they’re-bad-because-we’re-bad” account of ISIS. Or you could make a film which ignored entirely the whole question of ISIS atrocities and simply presented ISIS fighters as pure, selfless, heroic defenders of their communities. Let’s face it, there are plenty of example of films which treat warriors from various western societies in that way, ignoring entirely the moral complexities and murky aspects of the conflicts in which they are engaged - an “ISIS-as-the-Seventh-Cavalry” film.

[bob_2]

In the UK, it would entirely depend on how it was presented. A film noir about a group of terrorists or just one (The Jackal?) which stuck to the action and made no attempt to convert anyone to their cause, would probably be okay. Anything that looked like propaganda, or a recruiting drive, would not.

[Go_Arachnid_Laser_1]

@Bear_Nenno

What does that matter? You can consider it whatever kind of speech you want. It doesn’t change the fact that it is constitutionally protected.

Woah. You are right. There is no hate speech exception in the U.S. Only, and allow me to quote wikipedia “the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words”

So I guess that nothing can stop a theater from showing pro-Isis films.

[TriPolar]

@Go_Arachnid_Laser

So I guess that nothing can stop a theater from showing pro-Isis films.

Almost anything could stop a theater from showing pro-Isis films. The exception is the government, they can’t stop it.

[Loach]

Hopefully a law speaking type will come along and tell me if I’m right.

It seems to me that a pro Nazi film during WWII would be much different than a pro ISIS film now. Germany was an enemy in a declared war. ISIS is not. It seems to me that a pro Nazi film would fall under parts of the Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activities statutes in the U.S. code. I don’t know if any of that has been ruled unconstitutional.

[Shakester]

Plenty of holocaust deniers and the like get published with no restrictions. David Irving’s books are freely available, for instance.

[SigMan]

That would be interesting as to who will go see a pro-ISIS movie.

And again what will stop a bomb being put in there to get rid of them?

[Derleth]

@Go_Arachnid_Laser

Unless we are talking about very subtle films, both would probably be considered hate speech.

There’s no such thing as “hate speech” under US law. The concept simply does not exist.

[Derleth]

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, in case anyone doesn’t believe me.

And, because there’s apparently been some confusion in the past, fighting words aren’t hate speech:

To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.)

And the quote which backs up my specific assertion:

For this very reason, “hate speech” also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category.

It’s usually hard to prove a negative, but, happily, the law is a closed, finite system, so we can definitively say that it does not contain certain things.

[md2000]

@Derleth

There’s no such thing as “hate speech” under US law. The concept simply does not exist.

@bob_2

In the UK, it would entirely depend on how it was presented. A film noir about a group of terrorists or just one (The Jackal?) which stuck to the action and made no attempt to convert anyone to their cause, would probably be okay. Anything that looked like propaganda, or a recruiting drive, would not.

That’s because the UK, like Canada, does not have real freedom of speech constitutionally guaranteed. For example,
David Ahenakew - Wikipedia

[md2000]

Should also add this, from the Wikipedia discussion of Shenck:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Finally, in 2010, the Supreme Court rejected the argument of Holmes’s Abrams dissent. The facts in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) were similar to those in Abrams: persons who planned to advocate the causes of Sri Lankan and Kurdish organizations, designated terrorist groups, had a reasonable fear of prosecution under the USA PATRIOT Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2339B, for providing material support for terrorist organizations. The Supreme Court held that such prosecutions were not barred by the First Amendment, expressly rejecting the argument that a “specific intent” to assist terrorist acts was required, rejecting also the claim of the dissenting justices that the case was governed by the concurrence in Whitney, or by the standard stated in Brandenburg. Finally, in Citizens United v. FEC, the majority of the Court rejected the argument made by the dissenters that the First Amendment was premised on the value of democratic deliberation in the “marketplace of ideas.” Instead, they held that First Amendment rights are individual, not based on communitarian considerations.

So theoretically, your ISIS video could get you prosecuted if it is deemed propaganda. After all, if the writer and singer of the hit song “Peace Train” ended up on the no-fly list as a terrorist, who is safe?

[Boyo_Jim]

Of course it would be legal. It’s hard for me to imagine this is a serious question, but maybe that’s my problem, not the OP’s.

[Chihuahua]

We live in a country where people are allowed to thank God for IEDs at the funerals of dead soldiers. That should tell you all you need to know.

[Go_Arachnid_Laser_1]

@Boyo_Jim

Of course it would be legal. It’s hard for me to imagine this is a serious question, but maybe that’s my problem, not the OP’s.

Why shouldn’t it be? There’s plenty of countries where the idea would be nothing short of unthinkable. The aforementioned David Irving, according to Wikipedia, did 18 months in an Austrian prison for holocaust denial, for instance.