http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a3_3_1-2s8...
From wiki: According to the law in force, it is treason felony to "compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend"
It is doubly weird for the UK since the monarch is just a figure head. I wonder if the law applies to the prime minsiter (after watching London has Fallen, I guess not).
There was a time in the late 90s when the golden Beijing Institute of Film class (the first one after the cultural revolution) was producing wonderful art house films that DID get viewership abroad. Sadly, this ended with increasing control of the gov over the film industry, and even the Taiwanese and Honk Kong films that we once enjoyed have disappeared to an industry that is now largely catering to the mainland market.
The future of the chinese film industry is more Warcraft and less "eat, drink man woman" (a Taiwan film) or "farewell my concubine" (I think the latter one was banned in the mainland), there is nothing there for us.
This is empirically false: Crouching Tiger, Ip Man 1-3 were all well-received[1] in the US. I could add anything by Jackie Chan (and for a while Jet Li), but not all if them were Chinese productions.
1. The first had some overt propaganda in the form of a sadistic but inept Japanese occupying officer.
[1]: http://www.globalresearch.ca/lights-camera-covert-action-the...
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/nov/14/thriller-ridley...
This isn't overt propaganda in the traditional sense, but the effect is the same.
It was my understanding that 18 U.S. Code § 871 included depictions enticing or encouraging such acts. I will look this up and come back with more information at a later time.
And to be clear here I mean a depiction of an actual US president. Not a fictitious president.
> Full stop, no it doesn't. Where the heck are you getting such misinformation? It is not just wrong, it is bordering on libel.
The mainstream news media is where I am getting this information. I remember it being reported on during the Pearl Harbor film some years ago (Bush Administration). Though I see it all the time: the SONY Leaks disclosed how the State Department and CIA helped to influence "The Interview" so that it would both depict the assassination of their president and to encourage civil unrest.
I take the libel statement seriously. I will pass it by my attorney. Difficult to discuss here, as neither of us are lawyers.
> There is an audience for those films.
Not a point.
It was my understanding that 18
U.S. Code § 871 included depictions
enticing or encouraging such acts.
The constitutional guarantees of free
speech and free press do not permit a
State to forbid or proscribe advocacy
of the use of force or of law
violation except where such advocacy
is directed to inciting or producing
imminent lawless action and is likely
to incite or produce such action.
Obviously you are trolling.
If that's the case, I suspect that the relevant language here is enticing or encouraging. Depictions of, say, historical events would be different. That said, I am most definitely not a lawyer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_President_%282006...
I'm talking about American law where American law applies.
Newmarket paid one million dollars for the U.S. distribution rights.
The film was screened in the U.S. for 14 days, showing at 143 theatres at its widest release.
Regardless of where it was created, if there were such a prohibition, the film most certainly wouldn't have been shown in the US, nor anyone silly enough to pay for distribution rights. Note there were issues regarding screening, but it was some independent companies—not some government regulation—that made the decision not to screen it. All of this is evident from your parent comment.
Why is it so important for you to press this particular point, even after you've said you would refer to the law later tonight?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13324076
I will look this up and come back with more information at a later time.
If you are no longer willing to discuss this in good faith, please refrain from discussing it at all. I, for one, will not comment on this further.
Full stop, no it isn't.
> Handling topics of National Security, such as Pearl Harbor, must be screened and if needed edited by National Security personnel.
Full stop, no it doesn't. Where the heck are you getting such misinformation? It is not just wrong, it is bordering on libel.
> Close partnership and collective ownership of media production facilities has given us movies with fake narratives like the Jessica Lynch story, Zero Dark Thirty, etc.
There is an audience for those films. There is also an audience for films that are anti-patriotic and can be considered downright subversive. The American film industry is huge, Chinese aren't aware of even 5% of its output.