Submission for rec-music-gaffa

[munnari!fgp.hcru.uq.oz.au!andy@uunet.UU.NET (The Wubba Wubba Mon)]

Path: fgp!andy
From: andy@fgp.hcru.uq.OZ (The Wubba Wubba Mon)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: Censorship  [was Re: A note to Andrew Jones...]
Summary: Can extremists prevail by using pacifism?
Keywords: PG, censorship, pacifism, lawyers
Date: 5 Sep 89 23:00:08 GMT
References: <8908300219.AA06271@ide.com> <8908281244.AA12377@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: andy@fgp.UUCP (The Wubba Wubba Mon)
Organization: Humanities Computing Resources Unit,  University of Queensland,  Australia.
Lines: 63

In article <8908281244.AA12377@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> Deb writerered:
>_The Last Temptation of Christ_.  Sorry.  I guess that, by giving a review
>of the movie, I led you to believe that _Temptation_ was easy to find
>around here.  It isn't.  I live near Albany, New York (the state capitol)
>and I believe there was only ONE theatre around here that didn't ban the
>film...and THAT theatre took more than it's share of abuse from people
>picketing and so on.  Once the movie left the theatre, the same people who
>opposed the film were trying to ban _Temptation_ from hitting the video
>rental places, and for the most part they were successful.  There are only
>a few places that carry the movie...that's why I was so surprised to find
>the movie in, of all places, a local supermarket which has a video rental!

I don't want to start up more legal arguments.  It seems that Usenet is full
of aspiring lawyers, who write "I'm not a lawyer, but <200 lines>".

I wonder how far one a protester can go under the law.  The Oz and US law
systems are based on UK or European ideas, and so general principals
probably port across fairly accurately.

A basic tennant seems to be that one has the right to `injure' someone's
beliefs, but not their physical person.   So that  <Salmon Rushdie>  can
write a book which is (allegedly) offensive to the beliefs of <Muslims>,
and they cannot <kill> him becuase of it.
This seems to be at odds with <Islamic {Fundamentalist} Law> though....


Take the case of someone protesting outside a movie.  If they physically
{but non-violently} block the door, then to get in, you have to move them,
and therefore, probably in a legalesque sense, "Assault" them.

This looks kinda crazy, I know, but I have absolutly no idea what the law
says about this sort of pacifistic "unstoppable force and immovable object"
situation.   It looks to me like, given a sympathetic police force,
whichever side uses less physical contact/force is more in the right.
So that if the [extremist] protesters form a human mountain blocking the
entrances, then they can validly stop [non-extremists] people getting in.
(Unless they all go in through the unguarded exits!  ;-)

Any comments?   Can extremism win through pacifism?

BTW. How did Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" book go in other places of the world?
Here there were marches and protests and some [illegal] calls for Rushie to
be assassinated.   Some bomb threats were made to book stores intending to
stock it, but I don't remember any bombs being found/detonated.
I think many book stores backed down, and refused to stock it.

/\ndy

"Confesing all the secret things, in the warm velvet box.
 To the priest, he's the doctor.  He can handle the shocks."

P.S.  Re: KTISGOD.  What about the atheists and agnostics out there?
Anyone have license plate  KTISDARWIN???????

Disclaimer:  "I'm not a lawyer..."
--
Andrew M. Jones, Systems Programmer, 	ACSnet: andy@fgp.hcru.uq.oz
UUNET:  munnari!fgp.hcru.uq.oz.au!andy@uunet.UU.NET 	[I think!]

Snail: c/o French Dept,  Univ. of Qld, 	Work Phone: (07) 377 2075
       Brisbane, Qld. AUSTRALIA. 4067 	O/S Phone:  +61 7 377 2075

"No matter what hits the fan, it's never distributed evenly....."