# The legality of a pro-enemy movie being shown in U.S. movie theaters **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 6, 2016, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323 "2016-04-06T06:21:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/61 "2016-04-08T01:03:59Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > The cinema owners could probably expect to have their taxes audited for years to come among other harassment. > [@MEBuckner](#): > > Who exactly would have the authority to order such a thing? [26 U.S. Code § 7217](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7217) provides for criminal penalties (including imprisonment for up to 5 years) if “the President, the Vice President, any employee of the executive office of the President, and any employee of the executive office of the Vice President” attempts “to request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer”. I find that just a bit naive. You’ve never heard any stories along these lines? The real-life Michael Burry, who correctly called the subprime crisis and was played by Christian Bale in _The Big Short_, has reportedly been audited several times for some unknown reason. No doubt no one could find a smoking gun of anyone directly ordering it, but these things seem to happen. I recall one article I read decades ago that said high-profile celebrities were often a favorite target for auditing, people like Johnny Carson say, because they’ll go on to make jokes about it and act as an unintentional deterrent to tax cheats. But you’ll never find any specific orders for that, I’d bet. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/62 "2016-04-08T01:19:33Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > I find that just a bit naive. You’ve never heard any stories along these lines? The real-life Michael Burry, who correctly called the subprime crisis and was played by Christian Bale in _The Big Short_, has reportedly been audited several times for some unknown reason. No doubt no one could find a smoking gun of anyone directly ordering it, but these things seem to happen. > > I recall one article I read decades ago that said high-profile celebrities were often a favorite target for auditing, people like Johnny Carson say, because they’ll go on to make jokes about it and act as an unintentional deterrent to tax cheats. But you’ll never find any specific orders for that, I’d bet. Well, such a thing would be specifically illegal under U.S. law–I linked to the relevant section of the U.S. code. This being General Questions, do you have any actual cite–beyond “everybody knows” stories–of illegally-ordered audits for political purposes taking place in the 21st century U.S.? Certainly people–even people who are officials of the U.S. federal government–break the law sometimes. But if we’re just going to wildly speculate why not say “The cinema owners could probably expect to suffer mysterious single-car fatal traffic accidents” or “The cinema owners could probably expect to be killed by mysterious assassins wielding ricin-tipped umbrellas”. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/63 "2016-04-08T01:22:52Z")
Would it be LEGAL to show movies supporting America’s enemies? Of course. Such a movie could never be a big hit, obviously, but I have no problem believing that indie/art house theaters would happily screen movies making American soldiers out to be the bad guys in movies about any number of conflicts. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/64 "2016-04-08T05:59:10Z")
> [@chacoguy](#): > > Based on your username, I’m going to assume you will mop the floor with me on this topic. Still, some of those guys _had_ to be Nazis. Maybe so, but if you’re not certain if they were or not from the movie then it obviously wasn’t promoting Nazism. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/65 "2016-04-08T06:01:15Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > I find that just a bit naive. You’ve never heard any stories along these lines? The real-life Michael Burry, who correctly called the subprime crisis and was played by Christian Bale in _The Big Short_, has reportedly been audited several times for some unknown reason. No doubt no one could find a smoking gun of anyone directly ordering it, but these things seem to happen. > > I recall one article I read decades ago that said high-profile celebrities were often a favorite target for auditing, people like Johnny Carson say, because they’ll go on to make jokes about it and act as an unintentional deterrent to tax cheats. But you’ll never find any specific orders for that, I’d bet. In other words, you have no actual basis for your remark. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/66 "2016-04-08T06:44:57Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > You get audited due to having a high DIF score or a informant. Not due to political pressure. there’s not even a way to do that. Really? I guess this is all wrong then. > [@](#): > > In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes. This led to wide condemnation of the agency and triggered several investigations, including a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal probe ordered by United States Attorney General Eric Holder. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy) ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/67 "2016-04-08T08:00:02Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Really? I guess this is all wrong then. > > [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy) Scrutiny when applying for a tax-exempt status is much different than yearly audits is it not? ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/68 "2016-04-08T11:16:50Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Would it be LEGAL to show movies supporting America’s enemies? Of course. Except that, as documented in this thread, there isn’t any “of course” about it at all: it has been prosecuted in the past, and may be prosecuted again some time in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/69 "2016-04-08T14:08:12Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Really? I guess this is all wrong then. We are talking about audits for individual taxpayers, not applications for tax-exempt status for corporate bodies. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/70 "2016-04-08T16:52:05Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > Scrutiny when applying for a tax-exempt status is much different than yearly audits is it not? Yep. Not audits. ---
**Author:** ![skdo23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@skdo23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/skdo23)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/71 "2016-04-08T17:20:03Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > I find that just a bit naive. You’ve never heard any stories along these lines? The real-life Michael Burry, who correctly called the subprime crisis and was played by Christian Bale in _The Big Short_, has reportedly been audited several times for some unknown reason. No doubt no one could find a smoking gun of anyone directly ordering it, but these things seem to happen. Maybe because Burry’s annual income likely fluctuated wildly over a period of several years since the strategy that made him famous consisted of him betting against a strong economic trend during the mid 2000s in anticipation of a sharp reversal that did not materialize until 2008. Such inconsistencies in reported income from year to year will almost guarantee an audit. Also, my understanding is that a lot of tax issues arose during this period due to the increased popularity of both hedge funds and derivatives in general which, in turn, subjected investors like Burry to increased scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/72 "2016-07-07T21:12:44Z")
Help me understand something - if someone were to use a YouTube channel or an email account to try to recruit people to join ISIS, he’d probably be charged with aiding and abetting terrorism, or something of the sort. But if someone makes a movie (according to the consensus in this thread) promoting ISIS and trying to get people to join ISIS, then that’s Constitutionally protected free speech and cultural art/expression? It’s like, if you try to get 10 people to join ISIS, that’s a crime, but if you try to persuade a TV audience of 10 million viewers to join ISIS, that’s not a crime? ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/73 "2016-07-07T21:34:54Z")
I’m just catching this thread for the first time. In the past decade or two, the Cuban film industry has won quite a lot of international awards, but I can’t recall any Cuban film ever being shown on any of the cable movie channels. (However, some films made outside Cuba by emigres were identified as “Cuban” and shown.) But that would be a different situation, because the Treasury Department would pronibit any business transaction that involved trade with any Cuban interest, including the necessity to pay royalties fo the Cuban owners of the film rights, according to international intellectual property treaties. So the Treasury Department apparently had the lawful power to prohibit speech if the rights to the content were owned by Cuba copyright. I saw what purported to be Iranian films on a cable outlet about ten years ago, but I strongly suspect that they, too , were created outside Iran for the international Iranian emigre audience. ---
**Author:** ![glowacks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/glowacks/32/5548_2.png) [@glowacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glowacks)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2016, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/74 "2016-07-10T05:55:55Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I think Das Boot straddled the fence really skillfully in that it depicted Nazi submariners in a sympathetic light without depicting Nazism itself in a sympathetic light. I know I’m rather late to the thread, but my memory of Das Boot was that the sailors and officers in general didn’t care much for Naziism, they were just fighting on behalf of Germany. In particular, the filmmakers depict the one guy who is an overt Nazi (perhaps as a direct assignment from one of their intelligence organs or something? I don’t remember) as uptight, naive, and generally not in tune with the rest of the boat. They very definitely showed antipathy towards the Nazi cause despite showing the deeds of a boat and its crew there were under its flag. The focus is far more on what life was like as a submariner in wartime in the 1940s than it was on political ideology, and what little there was of the latter was resoundingly opposed to the historically present German government’s. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2016, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/75 "2016-07-10T05:58:38Z")
> [@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](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115) statutes in the U.S. code. I don’t know if any of that has been ruled unconstitutional. Perhaps. But Congress did declare “war on terrorism”. ---
**Author:** ![Me\_Billy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e480ec/32.png) [@Me\_Billy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Me_Billy)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2016, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/76 "2016-07-10T17:06:05Z")
In the past the U.S. government has had programs such as “COINTELPRO” to counter enemy activities in the U.S. > **[COINTELPRO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO)** > > COINTELPRO (syllabic abbreviation derived from Counter Intelligence Program; 1956–1971) was a series of covert and illegal projects actively conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic American political organizations. FBI records show COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals the FBI deemed subversive, including feminist organizations, the Communist Party USA, In 1971 in San Diego, th... ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2016, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323/77 "2016-07-10T17:30:26Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > I find that just a bit naive. You’ve never heard any stories along these lines? The real-life Michael Burry, who correctly called the subprime crisis and was played by Christian Bale in _The Big Short_, has reportedly been audited several times for some unknown reason. No doubt no one could find a smoking gun of anyone directly ordering it, but these things seem to happen. Hedge funds and their managers are routinely audited by the IRS. Anybody who makes several million dollars a year has something like a 60% chance of being audited in any given year, and that probability increases more if there are sudden, huge spikes in income. Michael Burry is not unique in this regard - most successful hedge fund partners are probably audited more often than they are not, especially because that business often leads to large swings. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-a-pro-enemy-movie-being-shown-in-u-s-movie-theaters/751323.md?page=3)