The last few decades of politics…?
So? “Hate speech” is not illegal in the USA.
The cinema owners could probably expect to have their taxes audited for years to come among other harassment.
Once again, no country on earth gives its citizens the unrestricted right to say anything in any circumstance. The US has many flavors of unprotected speech.
I don’t agree with a definition of “real” freedom of speech being the specific line that the US has drawn between protected and unprotected speech.
WRT the OP, probably such a film would be OK, but the US does have an incitement to commit crime exception. So if it was very clearly stating how to, say, make bombs and join ISIS, and had very clear propaganda on why it’s good to go mutilate infidels, I think it could be blocked on those grounds.
I’ll answer that one once I tackle why its ok for kids to dress as Darth Vader.
The propaganda magazine of the IS, ‘Dabiq’, is freely available as PDF on the Web (google “Dabiq magazine”, inter alia on the site of an avovedly anti-Islamist site (clarionproject.org). It’s very skilfully made and makes no claim to be anything else than the official IS mouthpiece. (Warning: has photographs of corpses - both of their victims and of their fighters).
I don’t see why the legal case for a movie would be different.
IANAL, but I’m pretty sure it’s against the law in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia) to plant bombs in movie theaters, and doing so would almost certainly violate federal law as well. So, the same things that prevent (or fail to prevent) any other movie theater from being bombed would apply to our hypothetical movie theater that screens a pro-ISIS propaganda movie.
Who exactly would have the authority to order such a thing? 26 U.S. Code § 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”.
Boyo Jim said that he wasn’t sure the OP question was for real, to which I said that there’s nothing weird about the question, since the idea of a pro-enemy movie being shown would be insane practically anywhere else.
I’ve always wanted to shout “THEATER” at a crowded fire.
Not at all. Lots of countries have a free speech culture in which opinions which are unpopular both with the government of the day and with public sentiment can nevertheless be legally expressed.
Throughout the IRA’s campaign of violence in Ireland and the UK up to the 1997 ceasefire An Phoblacht, the official organ of Sinn Féin, was consistent in its support for, and defence of, the IRA’s campaign. It circulated freely both in the Republic and throughout the UK. Nobody made any similar feature films but, had they done so, I doubt that any legal steps would or could have been taken against them. Ken Loach did make a very pro-Irish Republican film in 2006 (“The Wind that Shakes the Barley”) which was much criticised for being anti-British; it was freely shown, and in fact was quite successful in terms of awards and nominations.
In the Year of the Pig is a 1968 American film which was highly critical of the prosecution of the war in Vietnam and presented the North Vietnamese, and in particular Ho Chi Minh, in a very favourable light. It was critically well-received (got an Academy Award nomination) but was sufficiently unpopular in the US to be greeted with hostility, protests, bomb threats and vandalism. It was shown freely not only in the US but also in Australia and New Zealand, both of which were co-belligerents with the US in that war.
The US has a proud record of defending free speech, and in many ways is an example to the world. But it’s by no means the only country in which freedom of speech - in particular when it comes to speech critical of the government - is well-protected constitutionally, legally or by the political culture. There are many countries where the idea of a pro-enemy movie being shown would not be at all insane.
Didn’t some kid get banged up for some pro-ISIS tweets?
You’re probably thinking of this guy. He didn’t just tweet in support of ISIS; he helped a friend travel to Syria to join up.
Given the definition of “material support” in US Code s. 2339A, I think the assistance with enlistment would have provided the foundation for the charge, more than any opinion expressed in the tweets.
Depending on exactly what’s in the tweets, there could be other charges arising of of pro-ISIS tweets; threatening behaviour, for example, if the tweets contain specific threats of violence. But I doubt that simply saying “I support the objectives of ISIS, and the methods employed in pursuit of them” is a crime.
During WWI, an American film-maker was prosecuted for making a film that criticized our ally too much (The Spirit of '76 (1917 film) - Wikipedia) - this was apparently considered “aiding and abetting the enemy.”
Mutual Film Corp v Ohio ruled that Film was not protected by the constitution as it was a business venture, and also that “they may be used for evil” in 1916.
This was repealed in 1952 in Joseph Burstyn v. Wilson, with the decision finding
So no, you couldn’t. But I’m sure if some ultra- pro ISIS film was made, the government would make an attempt to have the decision reversed again.
I doubt that. The attempt would attract huge opposition from people who are no friend to ISIS because of its implications for artistic expression generally. Plus, it would be uncertain whether it would succeed. And even if it did succeed it would be far too late - it would take years for the case to get to the Supreme Court, which is the only court that could overturn the existing precedent, by which time any theatrical run the film had had would be long over.
But, most of all, because there would be much more effective ways of supressing the film - e.g. by pressurising distributors not to distribute it, and cinemas not to show it.
Charge the filmmakers with Treason in they are U.S citizens, or Espionage if they aren’t, then sieze the film as ‘evidence’, and ban the showing of this ‘evidence’ to avoid diluting a jury pool. Just have to find some anti - isis judge to sign suppression orders and subpoenas. While technically unconstitutional, I’m sure a judge would sign them anyway because of their potential ramifications.
What, seize every single print of the film as evidence?
Realistically, even if you did that, in this day and age that would do nothing to prevent people from seeing the film; rather, it would lead to many more people seeking out the film online and watching it there. And since the government would inevitably be shot down in flames when the case got to the Supreme Court, I kind of doubt they would go down this track. Of the various tactics open to them to try to supress the film, why would they choose a tactic more likley to increase it’s exposure, and certain to be shot down by the courts, involving them in much ridicule and derision? It would more effective to do nothing at all, and rely on public sentiment to lead most distributors and cinema owners to conclude that they would be better off not to show the film.
Loach basically touched on the correct answer. Most of our constitutional jurisprudence on seditious activity comes from periods when we were in “proper” wars, or facing an apparent existential threat. In those periods, SCOTUS typically shied away from infringing too much on the authority of Congress and the executive in cases pertaining to the war effort. It’s not so much that it was a declared war as the level of threat.
So - for example - in Korematsu, SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of Japanese internment even though the decision is anathema to our modern understanding of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
In theory, this sort of film would likely be protected under the reasoning of Yates v. United States. Unless the film demands that its audience run out and overthrow the infidel oppressor immediately, it’s probably protected.
I find your lack of faith … disturbing.
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.