I so hope this ends up on Netflix - a lot of us live in the boonies, eh.
It’s being screened at over 50 cinemas across the UK on the 17th of October with a live Q+A from Laura! You can find listings/tickets here - citizenfourfilm.com
The problem isn’t just confined to the US and people don’t seem to realise how big the issue is with GCHQ and the UK government.
“problem isn’t just confined to the US and people don’t seem to realise how big the issue is with GCHQ and the UK government.”
And Australia has recently passed an absolutely shocking “counter-terror” law.
-
I’m not in the UK nor in the USA. Canada.
-
No kidding! Jacob Applebaum - People Think They’re Exempt From NSA
Anyone have any details why she’s on a terrorism watch list for making a movie? The US definitions of “terrorism” I have read are overly broad (they could be used to brand the US itself a terrorist state), they do specify that a person or group would need to be participating in violence, destruction, or providing material support to someone who does. It sounds like Poitras is on their shit list for merely publicizing what they find objectionable.
I would GUESS that they consider her providing services and political advocacy.
, they do specify that a person or group would need to be participating in violence, destruction, or providing material support to someone who does.
As you may know, Vice did a documentary on the Islamic State, featuring interviews and footage that could not be obtained without the cooperation of ISIS and it’s members, The Atlantic asked whether this documentary could be construed as illegal under “material support” laws.
It is a journalistic score that would make any ambitious reporter or news organization envious, and a feat now almost impossible for Western journalists after the executions of James Foley and Steven Sotloff. It could also be construed as a federal crime if the U.S. government wanted to prosecute Vice or Dairieh.
(And no, the Altantic isn’t trying to ape the New York Sun, either. It’s pointing out that prosecutorial discretion is very broad, and the courts’ record on the first amendment is very troubling when material support accusations are levied)
This is an aspect of US media I have found very troubling over the past few years, and I think really encourages people to be gullible. As soon as some alleged tyrant does something the country decides is problematic, they are formally shut off from most discourse. Even to the extent of groups and people being casually labelled “criminals”, while discouraging any sort of testimony. Testimony is not a “service”, it is generally regarded, I believe, as a human right. There appears to be some popular support from letting the public stew in a rage of media darkness. I remember some publicized outrage a few years back about some US news actually broadcasting a portion of an anti-US speech instead of “interpreting it for everyone”. Because since “we” had already decided that these were “bad guys” that nothing they say should be broadcast. Which essentially means that if news becomes unpleasant enough, it should automatically black out. Lest we risk publicizing the unpopular opinions of some characters whose villainy we are supposed to take on trust through carefully manicured media feeds.
I am surprised that this methodology doesn’t strike more people as propagandistic. If somebody has supposedly done something wrong, we must not hear what they have to say. Or alternately be assumed as sympathetic to their actions or dogma by virtue of being more interested in knowing what actually happened rather than being fed editorials about it.
Any idea how someone in the US might eventually watch this film? Looks like it’s just opening in the UK now and may come later, but a cursory search didn’t turn up any firm details.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
