Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ecsvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) Newsgroups: net.followup,net.games.trivia Subject: Re: Genus II Edition banned in U.S.? Message-ID: <1233@ecsvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 11-May-85 14:05:14 EDT Article-I.D.: ecsvax.1233 Posted: Sat May 11 14:05:14 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 13-May-85 03:21:26 EDT References: <451@mnetor.UUCP> <14@aquila.UUCP> <358@unm-cvax.UUCP> <10306@brl-tgr.ARPA> <483@usl.UUCP> Organization: Duke U Comp Ctr Lines: 53 Xref: watmath net.followup:4876 net.games.trivia:1793 > A better example is: the movie "If You Love This Planet" was banned (in > spite of the fact that it got an Academy Award for "Best Foreign > Documentary" (or some such)) and that Farley Mowat was denied entry > into the States to promote one of his books. The film in question was not "banned" in the US. It, and a film on acid rain, offended the Reagan administration which, in its typically inept way, chose to resurrect an old, unused law and require that (1) whenever one of the films was shown, an announcement be made to the effect that it was "foreign [i.e. Canadian] propaganda", and (2) a record be kept of the organizations exhibiting the film and the persons viewing it. Far from "banning" the films, the effect was to give them loads of free publicity and encourage their screening all over the place, including public television! Organizations went out of their way to openly disobey the law. I never heard of any prosecutions resulting from any of the numerous showings that violated these restrictions. So much for banned films. I disapprove of Mr Mowat's visa denial. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Mr Mowat's words are in no way restricted; his book is being sold and he has (if memory serves) been interviewed on US television. Furthermore, Col Qaddafi if Libya, who has been accused by the Reagan administration of plotting to assassinate the President, was permitted to address an American political conference via satellite, during which he called for the armed overthrow of the US government. No censorship was imposed and no punishment of the conference promoters ensued. So much for censorship of the unpopular political views of foreign nationals. > Anyways, since I didn't get torched like I thought I might be, > it seems fairly clear that the U.S. has not got "totally free > speech" as the original poster (re: Europe dropping net.politics) > claimed . . . An interesting breed of logic, there. I am not aware of anyone claiming that the US has totally free speech, just freer political speech than one is likely to find in most countries (including, alas, Canada, Britain, and France). In Canada (let us remember) it is illegal to differ with the official government line concerning certain historical events (in particular the Holocaust). The fact that the government's version of history in this instance is undoubtedly true is beside the point. Would you approve of the law in the (admittedly unlikely) event that a right-wing government took over Canada and promulgated its own version of, say, the history of Quebec? Furthermore, the banning of fruit-loop books claiming that the Holocaust was a hoax only serves to bring publicity to a nut group that would otherwise be ignored by everyone with an IQ outside the single digits. But let's not get into that again... -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary