Director scorns 'laughable' laws

Sgt. Sensible

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6051292.stm

Banned Chinese director Lou Ye has criticised his country's censorship laws as he plans to show his film Summer Palace at another festival.

Lou was banned for five years after he screened the epic love story at Cannes without government permission.

But he has continued to defy the censors by screening the movie around the world, and plans to show it at South Korea's Pusan festival.

"This is a very laughable thing," he told the Associated Press news agency.

"I think participating in film festivals is an artist's basic right, like taking part in an art exhibition or a book exhibition."

Mister Ye, there is no point of having laws unless they're applied across the board. To argue that we have a 'duty' to disobey the law whenever it goes against our morality is to argue for anarchism. So what additional punishments should be meted out to this dangerous subversive? :mad:

This is all stupid pseudo liberal tosh of course. He's absolutely right. Oh dear, I suppose that makes us both 'anarchists'.

The broader question is when is it ok to disobey laws you think are silly?

Zombrex

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

This is all stupid pseudo liberal tosh of course.

Yes, because liberals have always been about surpressing liberty .. that must be where they got the name from .:rolleyes:

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

The broader question is when is it ok to disobey laws you think are silly?

Depends on the situation and circumstance and the law itself. Your question is too broad to be answered properly.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the broader answer is, when you have a good reason.

Goodshape

If you truly believe a law is unjust then you should have the power of your convictions and oppose / defy it, imo. If it truly is unjust then you would hopefully (maybe only eventually) gain public support.

Simply not liking a law isn't really enough if you can still see how and why the law is necessary. You can't always get what you want but injustices shouldn't be allowed just because of some 'word from above'.

gurramok

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

The broader question is when is it ok to disobey laws you think are silly?

Well, here in Ireland we do have a law that is blatantly ignored and unenforced.

The law i speak of is the banning of unlicensed fireworks(bar legal firework displays carried out by highly trained professionals ) with penalties of upto €40k for handling, igniting, throwing and supply of said item.

This law's widespread ignorance by the masses and the ignorance of the police force to enact it points to it being one of those 'silly' laws

Sgt. Sensible

Wicknight wrote:

Yes, because liberals have always been about surpressing liberty .. that must be where they got the name from .:rolleyes:

I said "pseudo liberal". :rolleyes:

Depends on the situation and circumstance and the law itself. Your question is too broad to be answered properly.

Is the guy right to give two fingers to the authorities or not.

Goodshape

In this case, yes I'd say he was right. The Chinese have a worrying over fondness for 'censorship'.

Don't mean to drag this of topic at all (it is somewhat relevant) but the video on this site (not blood and guts, but pretty disturbing all the same!) illustrates an example of Chinese censorship pretty well.

And, according to Wikipedia, the stars of Seven Years in Tibet, Brad Pitt and David Thewlis, are banned from ever entering China as a result of being in the film.

Laws like this should be actively discouraged.

flogen

Goodshape wrote:

If you truly believe a law is unjust then you should have the power of your convictions and oppose / defy it, imo. If it truly is unjust then you would hopefully (maybe only eventually) gain public support.

Simply not liking a law isn't really enough if you can still see how and why the law is necessary. You can't always get what you want but injustices shouldn't be allowed just because of some 'word from above'.

I'd agree with that, disobeying a law you see as silly simply isn't on in a functioning democracy; if you feel there is a problem with a law in a democratic country you have the freedom to amass support for your view and legally remove the 'silly' law... so if there's something wrong with the Irish legislature and you can find a majority of people who agree with you, you won't have to disobey it, you'll be able to change it.
In a totalitarian state, however, the individual and greater public is not given the freedom to question laws or challenge them and so the line is blurred. It's stupid to say that everyone in China should disobey any law they feel is pointless, but in the same breath there is little else they can do, as trying to change it is equally pointless (and probably illegal too... dissidence etc. etc.)

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote:

The law i speak of is the banning of unlicensed fireworks(bar legal firework displays carried out by highly trained professionals ) with penalties of upto €40k for handling, igniting, throwing and supply of said item.

If nobody has been arrested for it, it's not illegal.

It's true - mountainyman told me.

mike65

This is a Humanities subject no?

The broader question is when is it ok to disobey laws you think are silly?

String...length?

Mike.

the_syco

gurramok wrote:

The law i speak of is the banning of unlicensed fireworks(bar legal firework displays carried out by highly trained professionals ) with penalties of upto €40k for handling, igniting, throwing and supply of said item.

That'd be the old law. The new law, its a €10,000 fine.

Sgt. Sensible

flogen wrote:

I'd agree with that, disobeying a law you see as silly simply isn't on in a functioning democracy; if you feel there is a problem with a law in a democratic country you have the freedom to amass support for your view and legally remove the 'silly' law... so if there's something wrong with the Irish legislature and you can find a majority of people who agree with you, you won't have to disobey it, you'll be able to change it.

So when Rosa Parks broke the law by refusing to give up her seat to a white person this was 'not on'. Or when Dublin's Virgin Megastore sold condoms before they were legally allowed to do so, this was 'not on'. Or when civil rights marches in Northern Ireland went ahead despite being banned this was 'not on'. Were the US, Ireland and UK not functioning democracies at the time? I don't even want to bother asking whether you engage in illegal file sharing.

In a totalitarian state, however, the individual and greater public is not given the freedom to question laws or challenge them and so the line is blurred. It's stupid to say that everyone in China should disobey any law they feel is pointless, but in the same breath there is little else they can do, as trying to change it is equally pointless (and probably illegal too... dissidence etc. etc.)

Chinese people can join the party and work within the law to change whatever they want.

Victor

Sgt. Sensible, aren't you missing the point that he is being punished in China, for showing a film in France?

Sgt. Sensible

Victor wrote:

Sgt. Sensible, aren't you missing the point that he is being punished in China, for showing a film in France?

Don't think so. It's an absurd law and he's totally right to flout it. I don't give a damn how illegal it is or what system of government came up with it.

The Corinthian

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

So when Rosa Parks broke the law by refusing to give up her seat to a white person this was 'not on'. Or when Dublin's Virgin Megastore sold condoms before they were legally allowed to do so, this was 'not on'. Or when civil rights marches in Northern Ireland went ahead despite being banned this was 'not on'. Were the US, Ireland and UK not functioning democracies at the time?

Oh dear, what a silly generalisation. Thus down to the noble examples of Rosa Parks and Dublin's Virgin Megastore, we should feel obliged to break any law if we don’t agree with it. Have you discussed this theory with NAMBLA?

In all seriousness, civil disobedience is only of use when the Society in question is prone to change. Thus in flouting the law you force a test on that law at a time when it is likely to be overturned. Otherwise you’ll simply get arrested and the vast majority, who would support the law in question, will just think you an idiot.

I don't even want to bother asking whether you engage in illegal file sharing.

I don’t get the impression that the majority of people who engage in illegal file sharing are making political statements.

bonkey

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

The broader question is when is it ok to disobey laws you think are silly?

When you are willing to be subjected to the punishment for breaking said law as the cost of making a statement against it.

flogen

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

So when Rosa Parks broke the law by refusing to give up her seat to a white person this was 'not on'. Or when Dublin's Virgin Megastore sold condoms before they were legally allowed to do so, this was 'not on'. Or when civil rights marches in Northern Ireland went ahead despite being banned this was 'not on'. Were the US, Ireland and UK not functioning democracies at the time? I don't even want to bother asking whether you engage in illegal file sharing.

Chinese people can join the party and work within the law to change whatever they want.

I hate to point out the obvious, but at the time of Rosa Parks breaking the law the black community was severly disenfranchised in America and the country could not have been called truly democratic at the time (lets not argue over whether it is now or not).
In Northern Ireland the nationalist community were also being ignored and were not given the representation they deserved; the fact that their march was banned highlights the fact that they were being denied a right to protest etc.
As for Virgin Megastores selling condoms, while I completely disagreed with the ban for countless reasons, if the electorate was unable or unwilling to force its government to make change, or if the Government was unwilling or unable to see the need for change (and the public accepted that) then yes, it wasn't on. What other banned substances do you think it's ok to sell in a store just because you think it's right?

The Corinthian

flogen wrote:

I hate to point out the obvious, but at the time of Rosa Parks breaking the law the black community was severly disenfranchised in America and the country could not have been called truly democratic at the time (lets not argue over whether it is now or not).

No, let’s just take your word for it :rolleyes:

One of the things that people tend to overlook is that successful campaigns of disobedience have only taken place when there was already almost sufficient momentum for change and the campaign of disobedience is what pushes it over the edge. Rosa Parks acted at a time when the US was in such a situation which is why she was successful - had she attempted the same thing twenty or even ten years earlier, it’s likely that we would never have heard of her.

flogen

The Corinthian wrote:

No, let’s just take your word for it :rolleyes:

Huh????

The Corinthian

flogen wrote:

Huh????

Forget it. I actually misread what you wrote.

Sgt. Sensible

The Corinthian wrote:

Oh dear, what a silly generalisation. Thus down to the noble examples of Rosa Parks and Dublin's Virgin Megastore, we should feel obliged to break any law if we don’t agree with it. Have you discussed this theory with NAMBLA?

You've misunderstood me here I think.

In all seriousness, civil disobedience is only of use when the Society in question is prone to change. Thus in flouting the law you force a test on that law at a time when it is likely to be overturned. Otherwise you’ll simply get arrested and the vast majority, who would support the law in question, will just think you an idiot.

Civil disobedience is often the next logical step to take after all available legal avenues have been tried and have either been blocked or frustrated by established interests so I would tend to agree with you, however modern society is indebted to many a lone nutter or small group of nutters who have stood up and challenged society's standards and conventions through art, science, philosophy etc. Ideas sometimes take time to garner popular support. The flip side of this is NAMBLA, the PDs, Gary Glitter, and Justin Timberlake's 'Sexyback'.

I think most people here are saying that a decision to disobey a law 'depends on the situation', and each situation must be assessed individually with due regard to the broader context, prior legal experiences and possible consequences.

I don’t get the impression that the majority of people who engage in illegal file sharing are making political statements.

The whole intellectual property rights area is a fairly large and controversial political subject I would think (as is the use of illicit drugs for that matter) and ever since the situationists, it's been predicted that the copying, sampling, detournement, plagiarism and mass distribution of art and ideas will usher in the death of 'bourgeois individualism'. Property rights are the bedrock of capitalism in fact so yes, illegal file sharing is political.

If anyone wants to prate about how doing illegal stuff is 'not on' in a functioning democracy maybe they should wipe their hds and try change the laws using legal means first. Is that an unreasonable request?

The Corinthian

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

You've misunderstood me here I think.

No, I was responding to what you wrote. If you didn’t mean that to be taken in that manner, you should not have written such a generalisation.

Civil disobedience is often the next logical step to take after all available legal avenues have been tried and have either been blocked or frustrated by established interests so I would tend to agree with you, however modern society is indebted to many a lone nutter or small group of nutters who have stood up and challenged society's standards and conventions through art, science, philosophy etc. Ideas sometimes take time to garner popular support.

Actually civil disobedience is by no means the next logical step. Lobbying, the use of marketing and PR strategies and campaigning are often a far better way of engendering change. For example; the status of homosexuality was not changed because they chose to flout the law on buggery, but because gay rights groups successfully lobbied and campaigned, not only politically, but also the medical establishment (that eventually reclassified Homosexuality from being an illness).

The flip side of this is NAMBLA, the PDs, Gary Glitter, and Justin Timberlake's 'Sexyback'.

Huh?

I think most people here are saying that a decision to disobey a law 'depends on the situation', and each situation must be assessed individually with due regard to the broader context, prior legal experiences and possible consequences.

That’s true and I gave one of the circumstances that should be taken into account - whether it is strategically pointless or not.

The whole intellectual property rights area is a fairly large and controversial political subject I would think (as is the use of illicit drugs for that matter) and ever since the situationists, it's been predicted that the copying, sampling, detournement, plagiarism and mass distribution of art and ideas will usher in the death of 'bourgeois individualism'. Property rights are the bedrock of capitalism in fact so yes, illegal file sharing is political.

Crap. By that logic then a mugger is a political activist, a latter day Robin Hood, no less.

No, some people steal because they want something without paying. Let’s not attempt to politicise everything for the sake of it.

Sgt. Sensible

The Corinthian wrote:

No, I was responding to what you wrote. If you didn’t mean that to be taken in that manner, you should not have written such a generalisation.

I made no generalisation.

Actually civil disobedience is by no means the next logical step. Lobbying, the use of marketing and PR strategies and campaigning are often a far better way of engendering change. For example; the status of homosexuality was not changed because they chose to flout the law on buggery, but because gay rights groups successfully lobbied and campaigned, not only politically, but also the medical establishment (that eventually reclassified Homosexuality from being an illness).

I don't know a whole lot about the gay rights movement so I don't know what illegal tactics if any were used but the (illegal) production of literature with gay themes helped to push the boundaries of what's considered obscene and what's acceptable. Eg, Jean Genet's Our Lady Of The Flowers. If you want to argue that illegal literature made no contribution to the decriminalisation of homosexuality then fire away. Interesting example anyway. Was homosexuality 'not on' because it was illegal? Would you call the police if you suspected someone of being involved in gayness? This is the hole I was addressing in Flogen's argument. Individual ethics come into play.

Huh?

Never mind.

That’s true and I gave one of the circumstances that should be taken into account - whether it is strategically pointless or not.

Crap.

Can you be civil please?

By that logic then a mugger is a political activist, a latter day Robin Hood, no less.

Muggers don't duplicate and then disseminate what they steal. To get back on topic, all the Chinese chap wants to do is show his bloody film to people without government permission. If it's unacceptable to mug someone, it's unacceptable for bureaucrats to effectively own someone else's work and decide whether it can be shown in another country or not.
No, some people steal because they want something without paying. Let’s not attempt to politicise everything for the sake of it.[/QUOTE]
I have mixed feelings on the whole file sharing thing, increased circulation of ideas is good for everyone, creative people starving if they don't get paid is bad, however like I say this is a large subject which probably belongs on another thread.

The Corinthian

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

I made no generalisation.

You did. You claimed only that such cases could be equated with the justifiable law breaking of Rosa Parks, Dublin's Virgin Megastore, etc. You made no attempt to suggest that some cases may indeed be “not on” only reject that any were and you only qualified your statement when it’s absurdity was pointed out.

I don't know a whole lot about the gay rights movement so I don't know what illegal tactics if any were used but the (illegal) production of literature with gay themes helped to push the boundaries of what's considered obscene and what's acceptable.

You don’t know a whole lot about the gay rights movement but you’re going to claim that its cause was won by civil disobedience anyway? Please, give me a break.

You claimed that civil disobedience and lawbreaking is “often the next logical step to take after all available legal avenues have been tried and have either been blocked or frustrated” and pointed out an area where this was certainly not the case.

If you want to argue that illegal literature made no contribution to the decriminalisation of homosexuality then fire away.

I suggest you argue that it did; I’ve already argued that other parts of the Gay rights campaign were those that made a difference, in the face of that whether illegal literature made no contribution is pretty irrelevant as it is arguable that it made a significant one.

Was homosexuality 'not on' because it was illegal? Would you call the police if you suspected someone of being involved in gayness? This is the hole I was addressing in Flogen's argument. Individual ethics come into play.

I refer you to my original post in this thread.

Can you be civil please?

Can you be less precious please? If you’re talking crap, it should be pointed out.

Muggers don't duplicate and then disseminate what they steal.

Yes they do, they discriminate in favour of those who are easy marks and likely to carry the most cash. Someone downloading a Bit Torrent is essentially discriminating in much the same way, seeking the best seed-to-leech ratio torrent for whatever content they want. They’re not making a political statement; and while some no doubt will use your argument as a moral justification for theft most simply don’t care - they just want the content.

There’s no ‘fight the pwah’ there - that’s all in your head.

Sgt. Sensible

The Corinthian wrote:

You did. You claimed only that such cases could be equated with the justifiable law breaking of Rosa Parks, Dublin's Virgin Megastore, etc. You made no attempt to suggest that some cases may indeed be “not on” only reject that any were and you only qualified your statement when it’s absurdity was pointed out.

Strawman argument. I made no generalisation. I gave 3 examples where Flogen's logic was flawed. That is all.

You don’t know a whole lot about the gay rights movement but you’re going to claim that its cause was won by civil disobedience anyway? Please, give me a break.

You claimed that civil disobedience and lawbreaking is “often the next logical step to take after all available legal avenues have been tried and have either been blocked or frustrated” and pointed out an area where this was certainly not the case.

I suggest you argue that it did; I’ve already argued that other parts of the Gay rights campaign were those that made a difference, in the face of that whether illegal literature made no contribution is pretty irrelevant as it is arguable that it made a significant one.

And how do you know that there were no illegal activities or instances of civil disobedience used to significant effect to win gay rights? Either you have an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of the movement or you don't actually know what you're talking about. Which is it? You're simply unable to read my posts properly. I said it was often the case, not always the case that civil disobedience is used after legal means haven't worked satisfactorily. By the way, I'm mystified how you seem to think that legal avenues don't include "lobbying, the use of marketing and PR strategies and campaigning".

Can you be less precious please? If you’re talking crap, it should be pointed out.

So that's a 'no' then. Fine so.

Yes they do, they discriminate in favour of those who are easy marks and likely to carry the most cash. Someone downloading a Bit Torrent is essentially discriminating in much the same way, seeking the best seed-to-leech ratio torrent for whatever content they want. They’re not making a political statement; and while some no doubt will use your argument as a moral justification for theft most simply don’t care - they just want the content.

One album downloaded does not equal one less album sold. How hard is that to understand? Any fool can see that technological advances have enormous political and economic ramifications, it has always been so. Therefore copying and redistributing media is inherently political, more by accident than design but nevertheless this has been predicted since the 60's as I said.

There’s no ‘fight the pwah’ there - that’s all in your head.

Imho it's an interesting and wide ranging potential discussion suited to a thread of its own, but given the childish posturing, propensity for strawmen arguments, apparent ignorance of social history and lame statements like the above in your posts, it's not one where I feel you'd be likely to have anything useful to contribute.

Sgt. Sensible

"I take my inspiration from earlier human rights activists like Mahatma Gandhi, Sylvia Pankhurst and Martin Luther King. I have adopted many of their tactics of non-violent civil disobedience and direct action – and invented a few of my own." - Gay rights guy Peter Tatchell.

And on Civil disobedience.

Hmm.

The Corinthian

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Strawman argument. I made no generalisation. I gave 3 examples where Flogen's logic was flawed. That is all.

With respects it is not in any way a straw man argument. Do you actually know what a straw man argument is BTW?

And how do you know that there were no illegal activities or instances of civil disobedience used to significant effect to win gay rights?

Why don’t you read up on it then? You’ll see that lobbying has been central to the development of homosexual rights. Civil disobedience also played a part, but historically you will note that this was not a leading or even ongoing one.

Either way it pretty much disproves your assertion that civil disobedience is “the next logical step to take after all available legal avenues have been tried and have either been blocked or frustrated”. It formed only a small part of the campaign for homosexual rights

Either you have an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of the movement or you don't actually know what you're talking about. Which is it?

Actually neither and indeed I require neither to point out you are talking rubbish.

You're simply unable to read my posts properly. I said it was often the case, not always the case that civil disobedience is used after legal means haven't worked satisfactorily.

But you’ve even failed to demonstrate how it is ‘often’ the case - whatever you mean by a fuzzy term like often anyhow.

By the way, I'm mystified how you seem to think that legal avenues don't include "lobbying, the use of marketing and PR strategies and campaigning".

I never said that.

One album downloaded does not equal one less album sold. How hard is that to understand?

Crap. To begin with one album downloaded will equal in a decrease in album sales. The ratio may not be 1:1 (as people who would never have bought an album will download), but the reality is that people who would have bought will instead have downloaded it or purchased a cheaper copy.

Piracy does result in decreased legitimate sales, so suggesting there is no real relationship there is utterly moronic - and yes, you didn’t say there was no relationship, but in dismissing a 1:1 relationship (that’s a straw man argument BTW) you are certainly suggesting that there is no real relationship either.

Any fool can see that technological advances have enormous political and economic ramifications, it has always been so. Therefore copying and redistributing media is inherently political, more by accident than design but nevertheless this has been predicted since the 60's as I said.

As I’ve already pointed out, most people don’t give a flying fsck about the political ramifications. And while large scale downloading may have enormous political and economic ramifications, this can be said of any crime that becomes prevalent - even muggings - but this does not make it a political act.

You’re just looking for revolution wherever you can invent it.

Imho it's an interesting and wide ranging potential discussion suited to a thread of its own, but given the childish posturing, propensity for strawmen arguments, apparent ignorance of social history and lame statements like the above in your posts, it's not one where I feel you'd be likely to have anything useful to contribute.

With respects, you are actually the one who has been making generalisations based upon nothing. You do not appear to understand what a straw man argument is, didn’t bother to even read the most basic history of the Homosexual rights movement and are too busy taking offence at any criticism to actually make a coherent argument.

Now, you are welcome to throw the toys out of the pram and say it’s all beneath you to argue, but until you can actually argue your point, you’re really just talking a load of clichéd rubbish.