2. If I was in the US I would have voted Democrat at every election from 1972 - 2012 without really needing to think about it.
3. In 2016 I might have had some doubts because of Hillary's anti-Russian paranoia and Involvement with Saudi Arabia - however the domestic healthcare issue would probably have swung me.
Now to the point:
The Democrat establishment has been making a complete fool of itself over Russia etc ever since the 2016 election - and this lawsuit just takes the biscuit....
Look, trademark law can be confusing. If you're not spending some significant portion of your life either practicing trademark law or writing about trademark law, you might misunderstand how it works.
No actually you only need to remember one thing. The purpose of Trademark law is to protect the consumer not the Trademark holder.
_Except that "benefit to the local community" inevitably includes "how many people will want to watch this movie""
Not really. The number of Tunisians who might watch Star Wars wasn't really a consideration when they shot part of it there. The potential local audience for the end product is not a big factor._
Please read my comment more carefully before you weigh in.
I said "the number of people" NOT "the number of local people.
Worldwide there are around 2 billion Christians and 1.5 Billion Muslims. That's around half the world population. Add to that the large numbers of Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus etc etc and it is clear that offending religious sensibilities is likely to impact the viewing figures for a film. Secular skeptics are a minority demographic worldwide.
they could insist that local people are hired as technical advisors to ensure that doesn't happen. As long as they aren't government officials being hired for a side job to push a religious agenda, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that.
That might not be acceptable to the film producers - if their script was along the lines in the article - assuming that the local community was generally a religious one - sounds like a recipe for conflict to me.
_"Note that it is not the personal religious leanings of the official that (should) count here but rather his/her opinions about the religious opinions of others."
So, not based on any evidence, then, just whatever the official decided to make up._
There you go again - I never said anything about how the official might come to his opinions. Of course it should be evidence based and the legality of the decision would be dependent on that.
The actual benefit to the local area, for one. You know, the supposed reason why these things are agreed to in the first place.
and
According to a certain criteria, yes. They can set the criteria, so long as it doesn't have "we prevent this on religious grounds" anywhere in them.
Except that "benefit to the local community" inevitably includes "how many people will want to watch this movie" and one criterion for that is always going to be "will there be a substantial proportion of the potential audience that will find this scene objectionable and hence will not want to watch it.
Another criterion might be that it portrayed the cultural environment of the local area inaccurately.
Note that it is not the personal religious leanings of the offical that (should) count here but rather his/her opinions about the religious opinions of others.
And by the way - if you are going to say that they could use "commercial viability" of a criterion and that that would somehow exclude content then that is just not credible.
Commercial viability clearly includes considerations like not offending certain potential customers.
They're still agents of the government no matter what they call themselves.
Hmm - governments often set up companies to do things, often in order to circumvent this kind of rule (I don't approve of it btw). In fact my own (public) organisation once set up a wholly owned company which employed all of us in order to take advantage of a tax loophole.
Ever heard of PFI?
I'm not tryimg to defend them here - just trying
make everyone aware of they way they might think about it.
so subsidies don't count as funding? Hmmm...
Never said or implied that - what an earth are you on about here???
What I meant was that whether the coose to fund (or subsidise) the film or choose not to fund (or subsidise) the film then they are making a judgement on a religious issue - and hence violating the separation of church and state.
Of course all this really underlines the basic point of the story - which is that the staste shouldn't be involved in this kind of stuff at all - since whichever way you jump there is an objection.
My point is that the state isn't acting as a state in this context - it is acting as a commercial marketing operation and hence should be free to act in its own interests, whatever it perceives them to be.
Actually funding the film would also be a violation of the separation of church and state since it is not a neutral act.
you do know that the Christian God and the Islamic God is the same God (along with the Jewish God)?
Not really. You are repeating a commonly held inaccuracy.
The Christian God is the same as the Jewish one - because Christianity accepts the same old testament as the Jews. (Although the new testament overrides the old when they disagree.)
However the Islamic God is NOT the same - he is actually the pagan moon god (just look at the top of a mosque for the clue) - and Islam has its own (rather weird) versions of the old and new testament stories.
If we remain with the Christian religions, we have to take into account the many contradictions exhibited in the bible. Slavery is OK. Two threads must not be incorporated in one cloth. Working on the Sabbath is subject to penalty of death. Etc., etc., etc..
That argument only works on the assumption that you believe the bible to be the literal word of God (like the Koran is supposed to be).
However it isn't. Jesus wrote nothing - and in the Gospels the expression "word of God" refers to Jesus not to a book.
Unfortunately the US is badly infected with a form of protestantism (which is effectively Islamised Christianity) where literal interpretation of every single text holds sway and skeptics like you can have a field day. The Church rejected all those misinterpretations many centuries ago.
For example on Slavery:
Thou shalt possess no slave, neither for domestic service nor for the labor of the fields, for man is made in the image of God.
Theoretically they're for PR and visibility for the tourist industry.
In which case the argument made against the film actually does make some sense. Don't view it as censorship - view it as a commercial marketing decision.
I presume you would have no problem with a company not sponsoring a film which they believed might offend some of their customers so why complain about an official doing it. In this context the state is not acting as government it is acting as corporate marketing.
One could argue that if there is to be any censorship it should be from the government - because that could guarantee due process.
As those who have fallen foul of private "censorship" from youtube, facebook et al will tell you there is frequently no viable avenue available to seek redress.
Quasi monopolies may have alternatives - but in practice these alternatives are usually dramatically less effective than the "monopoly" provider - rendering your point moot.
It's rather like saying that being on the no-fly list is not a problem because you can always go by ship.
Re: Re: US efforts to hobble crypto, "going dark" etc.
Conveniently ignored that the Soviets routinely did the same thing with the primary difference being the Soviets and Chinese disappeared people while McCarthy "merely" ruined livelihoods.
Although of course the US routinely allied itself with regimes in S. America and elsewhere that did "disappear" people.
Much of this argument has in the past revolved around US free speech laws.
However this is Germany - and US corporations should expect that the rules (and the culture) may be quite different.
In the US the law inteferes comparatively little in the way that privately owned platforms moderate their users' content.
Germany has taken a different approach.
There are problems with either approach - when corporations become quasi-monopolies their ability to regulate speech creates issues that are similar to government censorship.
The German approach sidesteps this problem, whilst creating others.
On the post: Democratic National Committee's Lawsuit Against Russians, Wikileaks And Various Trump Associates Full Of Legally Nutty Arguments
Hmm
1. I'm not in the US
2. If I was in the US I would have voted Democrat at every election from 1972 - 2012 without really needing to think about it.
3. In 2016 I might have had some doubts because of Hillary's anti-Russian paranoia and Involvement with Saudi Arabia - however the domestic healthcare issue would probably have swung me.
Now to the point:
The Democrat establishment has been making a complete fool of itself over Russia etc ever since the 2016 election - and this lawsuit just takes the biscuit....
On the post: The War On Whistleblowers Claims Another Casualty
Re: lOVE THE HYPOCRACY
The "Shift Key Dysfunctional"?
On the post: The War On Whistleblowers Claims Another Casualty
Re: Constitutional defense.
It strikes me that the Espionage Act is unconstitutional
It is certainly immoral - whether the US constitution bothers with this particular piece of morality is another issue.
Given a jury trial and a country where plea bargains are not so well entrenched he probably could have pleaded not guilty - a la Clive Ponting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Ponting
and allowed the jury to nullify the law.
On the post: Caymus Vineyard Sues Caymus Builders Because It Built Some Buildings For Its Wine Business
Misunderstanding
Look, trademark law can be confusing. If you're not spending some significant portion of your life either practicing trademark law or writing about trademark law, you might misunderstand how it works.
No actually you only need to remember one thing. The purpose of Trademark law is to protect the consumer not the Trademark holder.
Everything else follows from that.
On the post: There Are Several Good Reasons To End Entertainment Industry Subsidies, But Blasphemy Isn't One Of Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
_Except that "benefit to the local community" inevitably includes "how many people will want to watch this movie""
Not really. The number of Tunisians who might watch Star Wars wasn't really a consideration when they shot part of it there. The potential local audience for the end product is not a big factor._
Please read my comment more carefully before you weigh in.
I said "the number of people" NOT "the number of local people.
Worldwide there are around 2 billion Christians and 1.5 Billion Muslims. That's around half the world population. Add to that the large numbers of Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus etc etc and it is clear that offending religious sensibilities is likely to impact the viewing figures for a film. Secular skeptics are a minority demographic worldwide.
they could insist that local people are hired as technical advisors to ensure that doesn't happen. As long as they aren't government officials being hired for a side job to push a religious agenda, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that.
That might not be acceptable to the film producers - if their script was along the lines in the article - assuming that the local community was generally a religious one - sounds like a recipe for conflict to me.
_"Note that it is not the personal religious leanings of the official that (should) count here but rather his/her opinions about the religious opinions of others."
So, not based on any evidence, then, just whatever the official decided to make up._
There you go again - I never said anything about how the official might come to his opinions. Of course it should be evidence based and the legality of the decision would be dependent on that.
On the post: There Are Several Good Reasons To End Entertainment Industry Subsidies, But Blasphemy Isn't One Of Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The actual benefit to the local area, for one. You know, the supposed reason why these things are agreed to in the first place.
and
According to a certain criteria, yes. They can set the criteria, so long as it doesn't have "we prevent this on religious grounds" anywhere in them.
Except that "benefit to the local community" inevitably includes "how many people will want to watch this movie" and one criterion for that is always going to be "will there be a substantial proportion of the potential audience that will find this scene objectionable and hence will not want to watch it.
Another criterion might be that it portrayed the cultural environment of the local area inaccurately.
Note that it is not the personal religious leanings of the offical that (should) count here but rather his/her opinions about the religious opinions of others.
On the post: There Are Several Good Reasons To End Entertainment Industry Subsidies, But Blasphemy Isn't One Of Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you're just making excuses as to how government workers can evade the law.
No - I am identifying the excuses that they might (try to) make.
On the post: There Are Several Good Reasons To End Entertainment Industry Subsidies, But Blasphemy Isn't One Of Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And by the way - if you are going to say that they could use "commercial viability" of a criterion and that that would somehow exclude content then that is just not credible. Commercial viability clearly includes considerations like not offending certain potential customers.
On the post: There Are Several Good Reasons To End Entertainment Industry Subsidies, But Blasphemy Isn't One Of Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're still agents of the government no matter what they call themselves.
Hmm - governments often set up companies to do things, often in order to circumvent this kind of rule (I don't approve of it btw). In fact my own (public) organisation once set up a wholly owned company which employed all of us in order to take advantage of a tax loophole.
Ever heard of PFI?
I'm not tryimg to defend them here - just trying make everyone aware of they way they might think about it.
so subsidies don't count as funding? Hmmm...
Never said or implied that - what an earth are you on about here???
What I meant was that whether the coose to fund (or subsidise) the film or choose not to fund (or subsidise) the film then they are making a judgement on a religious issue - and hence violating the separation of church and state.
On the post: There Are Several Good Reasons To End Entertainment Industry Subsidies, But Blasphemy Isn't One Of Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they opt not to finance any film at all, fine. If they pick and choose which ones to finance based on content, that's not fine.
If they pick and choose at all what criteria could they possibly use that would exclude content?
If they don't pick and choose does that mean that anyone who turns up with a proposal to make a film gets funded?
Be realistic, any decision is bound to include the content of the film in some way - and if there is no decision then this is just a magic money tree.
On the post: There Are Several Good Reasons To End Entertainment Industry Subsidies, But Blasphemy Isn't One Of Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: There Are Several Good Reasons To End Entertainment Industry Subsidies, But Blasphemy Isn't One Of Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually funding the film would also be a violation of the separation of church and state since it is not a neutral act.
On the post: There Are Several Good Reasons To End Entertainment Industry Subsidies, But Blasphemy Isn't One Of Them
Re: Re: Re: Re:
you do know that the Christian God and the Islamic God is the same God (along with the Jewish God)?
Not really. You are repeating a commonly held inaccuracy.
The Christian God is the same as the Jewish one - because Christianity accepts the same old testament as the Jews. (Although the new testament overrides the old when they disagree.)
However the Islamic God is NOT the same - he is actually the pagan moon god (just look at the top of a mosque for the clue) - and Islam has its own (rather weird) versions of the old and new testament stories.
On the post: There Are Several Good Reasons To End Entertainment Industry Subsidies, But Blasphemy Isn't One Of Them
Re: Re: Re:
If we remain with the Christian religions, we have to take into account the many contradictions exhibited in the bible. Slavery is OK. Two threads must not be incorporated in one cloth. Working on the Sabbath is subject to penalty of death. Etc., etc., etc..
That argument only works on the assumption that you believe the bible to be the literal word of God (like the Koran is supposed to be).
However it isn't. Jesus wrote nothing - and in the Gospels the expression "word of God" refers to Jesus not to a book.
Unfortunately the US is badly infected with a form of protestantism (which is effectively Islamised Christianity) where literal interpretation of every single text holds sway and skeptics like you can have a field day. The Church rejected all those misinterpretations many centuries ago.
For example on Slavery: Thou shalt possess no slave, neither for domestic service nor for the labor of the fields, for man is made in the image of God.
Theordore the Studite (8th century)
On the post: There Are Several Good Reasons To End Entertainment Industry Subsidies, But Blasphemy Isn't One Of Them
Re: Re: Re:
Theoretically they're for PR and visibility for the tourist industry.
In which case the argument made against the film actually does make some sense. Don't view it as censorship - view it as a commercial marketing decision.
I presume you would have no problem with a company not sponsoring a film which they believed might offend some of their customers so why complain about an official doing it. In this context the state is not acting as government it is acting as corporate marketing.
On the post: Inverting The Expected Order Of Things, German Court Orders Facebook To Reinstate 'Offensive' Content
Re: Re: Germany - not like the US
One could argue that if there is to be any censorship it should be from the government - because that could guarantee due process.
As those who have fallen foul of private "censorship" from youtube, facebook et al will tell you there is frequently no viable avenue available to seek redress.
Quasi monopolies may have alternatives - but in practice these alternatives are usually dramatically less effective than the "monopoly" provider - rendering your point moot.
It's rather like saying that being on the no-fly list is not a problem because you can always go by ship.
On the post: In Trying To Ban Telegram, Russia Breaks The Internet
Re: Re: US efforts to hobble crypto, "going dark" etc.
Conveniently ignored that the Soviets routinely did the same thing with the primary difference being the Soviets and Chinese disappeared people while McCarthy "merely" ruined livelihoods.
Although of course the US routinely allied itself with regimes in S. America and elsewhere that did "disappear" people.
On the post: In Trying To Ban Telegram, Russia Breaks The Internet
Re: Re: Putting your money on Russia
On the post: Inverting The Expected Order Of Things, German Court Orders Facebook To Reinstate 'Offensive' Content
Germany - not like the US
However this is Germany - and US corporations should expect that the rules (and the culture) may be quite different.
In the US the law inteferes comparatively little in the way that privately owned platforms moderate their users' content.
Germany has taken a different approach.
There are problems with either approach - when corporations become quasi-monopolies their ability to regulate speech creates issues that are similar to government censorship.
The German approach sidesteps this problem, whilst creating others.
On the post: Singaporean Government Creates Fake News To Push Fake News Legislation
Re:
Next >>