#within their captive audience (i.e. their children)

[nobodysuspectsthebutterfly]

#imagine hearing good news you don’t have to marry your sister #your family is ready to be done with that weird incest shit #and you’re like nah that’s actually my deepest desire (via @spectrum-color)

I just refuse to believe Jaehaerys and Shaera could have been normal people like the Targaryen precedent is one thing but persisting w the whole incest thing when it’s been pretty unfashionable amongst even the Targs themselves for generations and your father is on his knees begging you to quit it but you don’t and in fact you go on to betrothe your own reluctant children bc some woman who lives on a hill says you should. I mean yes I’m grateful for Daenerys but my god

[thoroughlyskeptic]

“We both went to the London premiere but not together. We weren’t engaged and there was no reason to sort of show off to the world." USA Today November 18, 2014.

I'd like the Nannies to express their opinion about this please. With the full understanding that no person or persons on this side of the computer can control, sway or change Ben's mind or heart. That's not the point. The point is to understand what you believe is the psychological reasoning behind the decision to use that phrasing with his pregnant, soon to be fiancé and soon to be wife and soon to be mother of his child. According to People magazine and the Daily Mail, and those, including nannies, who said they have seen a Birth Certificate, Christopher Carlton Cumberbatch was born on June 1st.  Dislike it all you want, having a birthday makes it possible, and given human nature, likely that people will speculate on the date of conception, especially considering the facts, including the timing with regards to the Oscars and the shotgun* nature of the wedding. If it was a full term no problem pregnancy, 40 weeks, not under or over due, she was 2 and a half months pregnant when the above statement was made.

This story you nannies have built up, that Ben and Sophie have a true perfect love forever, that they never fight, how do you reconcile that with the whole unvarnished truth? Unless Sophie was totally gormless, she must have known she was pregnant. If Ben was dating her and truly in love, he would have known she was pregnant. They married three months later. He was in true love with the women he married, the woman he proposed to, whom he didn't mention by her name in interviews, and didn't want to walk down the red carpet to his movie premiere with the woman making his dreams come true, his dreams of being a father.

Now you are going to yell about things like privacy. That what he said was meant to protect Sophie and hide the pregnancy. I think anyone who is at all skeptical could answer that one. No one eager for privacy about their personal life talks to reporters, USA Today, or People magazine at all, let alone does a wedding dress spread in Vogue. I'm surprised it was in the print edition, and not the digital only. After all, maternity bridal gowns aren't really "en vogue". The long and short of it is that photo spread was well positioned and they managed to photograph her to look like she wasn't 5 1/2 months pregnant, perhaps to make that style of gown more in demand. Shotgun weddings tend to favor empire waists and lots of flounce to disguise the bump.

Now, I know the next question from the peanut gallery will be, why bring this up? They have stayed together, have two more kids together and it has been x and whatever years.

Here are several responses. Pick one or more in any combination.

1. Our feelings don't have to be right to be valid.

2. You have the option to object to our perfectly valid emotional reaction.

3. We have a right to block you from our page. You also have this right.

4. If you object to our opinions, you do not have to read our blogs or interact with us in anyway. If you are constantly feeling harassed because you see content from skeptics, BLOCK THEM, don't blame them! If the worker at Sea World handed you a poncho to protect yourself and you didn't use it, you can't blame the Shamu if you get splashed.(Sorry for the outdated and insensitive analogy but I wanted something easy to understand. I disagree whole hearted with the captivity of intelligent creatures be they aquatic or terrestrial mammals.)

5. We are valid in our own right as people. If you attack us on a personal level, we will defend ourselves and we have the right to do so.

6. As long as we do not interact with anyone,(i.e. Ben, Sophie, Karon, his management, etc) we can say whatever we want on our own blogs. The majority of us have never met him and don't want to. As far as we are concerned, Ben is an imaginary person that we are writing as a character for a long running D&D campaign.

7. However, the same does not apply to you. Many of you have gone out of your way to meet him. You believe that by sending hate to skeptics or doxxing them you will earn validation from him. I worry that some of you are on the brink and if he doesn't acknowledge you one time, or does something that you can't justify with your world view, one of you will snap. You think this about us, I know. But the nannies on the whole have much more emotional investment in Ben's personal life. (As a for instance, The skeptics call him Ben because at least one nanny has said that, "we don't know that he prefers that nickname so we should use his full name" another said "nicknames are for close friends and family and we aren't those, so we should call him by his full name or Mr. Cumberbatch." If Ben even has two thoughts about any skeptic or nanny(especially how they address him in blog posts) for the entire year I'd be surprised. Unless, of course, it when he has to think about you lot bothering him, stalking him, and generally making a nuisance of yourselves.

******

I also know you complain that the skeptics don't "love" Ben in every thing he does and don't always watch all his work. The gatekeeping within the fandom, not include how you discount and loathe the skeptics, is extreme. Fans must be all or nothing.

1. Not everyone has the money to participate fully, whether that is buying movies, theater tickets, merchandise or going to conventions to hear him speak. Disregarding fans based on their ability to participate, especially due to financial inability, is gatekeeping and it is the worst kind of gatekeeping. You are saying the only good fans are rich ones.

2. Generally the nannies viewpoint is Eurocentric as well. Some people have jobs, have children to raise, have other things that take priority over "being a fan". Being a fan requires time that poorer countries, less developed countries generally lack. Some countries censor the movies that are shown. Doctor Strange was not shown in the East the way it was in the west and unless you can afford to travel to another location,(Say the London Premiere that didn't quite happen and the nannies were upset because he didn't preform like a good little monkey in a suit for them?) you are made to feel left out by the uber fans.

3. Some people have emotional triggers. Ben's roles tend more towards the dramatic then comedic. Drama can deeply affect those who have experienced similar situations. He has been in movies dealing with Cancer, Childhood Abuse, Incest, Slavery, War, Pedophilia, have I missed any major triggers?

4. He is also in the MCU and the Hobbit movies which have flashing lights which makes them inaccessible to those who have seizures and migraines. Another oft used gatekeeping tactic in fandoms is the restriction of accessibility. In the US, there are compliancy laws for disabilities(although they aren't always obeyed) but smaller, poorer countries may not have accessible movie theaters. Fans with disabilities can not travel as easily as more abled fans. Smaller independent films Benedict made at the beginning of his career may not have captions or audio description or may be unafforable for those that have medical costs to consider.

5. There is also gender bias in the Cumberbatch fandom. One need only look at their chosen name, Cumberbitches. I can think of 15 more gender neutral terms off the top of my head but men and those who identify as male were inherently excluded from the fandom. I can think of ONE male fan. Maybe one that writes under his wife's account as to not get ridiculed. Because they would be ridiculed by the nannies, that is who they are, the "gatekeepers of the fandom", deciding who is worthy to be a Ben fan.

They have made fun of fans before. Not just skeptics. People they don't like or don't want in their little clique. So the majority of Ben's fans are middle aged rich white women. Not because that's who he's trying to reach as an audience but because that is who his uber fans allow to worship him.

If you are in need of examples of how out of control the uber fans are take the following for an example.

Someone did a nice tweet about other actors. It had nothing to do with Ben, although it did feature Tom Hiddleston and other Marvel actors. The ubers starting by saying Ben wasn't listed, then jumped into, well, a screenshot is worth a thousand words.

As they say, that escalated quickly...

*Shotgun Wedding is an American term for a marriage precipitated by the pregnancy. It comes from an American colloquialism, termed as such based on a stereotypical scenario in which the father of the pregnant bride-to-be threatens the reluctant groom with a shotgun in order to ensure that he follows through with the wedding.

[lordlenne]

Could you elaborate on Title 18, because I'm pretty sure it makes NSFW underage illegal

Not immediately illegal at first glance. You have to officially be a part of law enforcement before you can say something is illegal. The reason being is because of the Miller test.

Before I elaborate Title 18 for you, let me tell you about the Miller test, the most important thing in determining whether a fictional NSFW art content is legal or illegal. This is a long read, so I hope you’re prepared! (Read more under the cut! unless you’re mobile, then sorry!)

The Miller test is a Supreme Court test, meaning it is the absolute beginning and end all for judging anything to be legally considered obscene before it is defined as against the law. In order for anything—a drawing, a photo, a piece of written fiction, etc.—to be considered against Title 18 (i.e. the law) the piece of material must pass the Miller test and be considered obscene. If it is obscene, then it can be considered illegal as long as it doesn’t pass some exceptions from Title 18. But for starters, the only way you can actually have a passed MIller test become official on your work is if you get prosecuted for your work.

Essentially, this means that public domain fictional material is considered not against the law unless higher powers abuse their powers by deeming you criminally unjust enough to afford spending so much money and time to go about arresting you for reasons that are protected by website Terms of Service, Privacy/Content policies, and DMCA, let alone the Miller test. An art hosting website will definitely intervene if they deem that your artwork does not violate their ToS, and hearing that you were unfairly prosecuted (meaning without proper representation) without their knowledge is important for them because they don’t want content writers (who follow their ToS) to be prosecuted, because this creates a bad image for them and creates a hostile environment for hundreds of thousands of other content creators.

Back to the Miller test, now, say you were threatened to be arrested for your artwork. But this is just a threat—to actually be arrested and prosecuted, the Miller test must be applied and the facts be presented to a judge before a warrant is signed by said judge for your arrest. For your content to be considered obscene, it has to pass ALL THREE PRONGS from the Miller test as follows:

1. Whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards”, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest

2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,

3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

Let’s break it down one by one:

Prong 1: “Whether “the average person applying contemporary community standards…” refers to community standards of where the artwork is presented in. For a simple example, my fanfiction falls under the ArchiveOfOurOwn community. They are community—nothing bigger than a state. For Prong 1 to pass, the AO3 community has to, as a whole (unanimously), find my work offensive and sexually appealing. However, a community is comprised of large groups of people, and being that it is AO3, these large people are scattered across the world. One person in California might find my work offensive and inappropriate, but someone in New York can find my work the opposite, or in fact, hold some artistic value (see Prong 3). If this is the case (and it usually is), then Prong 1 fails because the community does not have a unified word. This is an easy prong to fail because the community standards are established by both AO3′s Terms of Service and the community of writers that create so much varying content. AO3 basically allows works that create prurient interest, and other writers have already produced works with prurient interest. Because the community (as a whole) cannot find offense in my works per individual writers’ morals and Terms of Service combined, Prong 1 fails. (At this point you can forget about trying to label my fanfiction as against the law and just stop reading about the test.)

Prong 2: “Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way…” also uses community standards. Yes, it uses individual state obscenity laws to determine if something is obscene, but patently offensive uses the word of the viewing public. The viewing public does not mean people of the state in this sense, but rather, where the artwork was placed, so it uses the community as “the public.” In my case it would be AO3, and so the public view is considered the audience.

Now, even if the audience were responsible for judging something as obscene, they need a state law to follow. It is initially difficult to determine which state law to use, because the offended, the law enforcement, AO3 community, and the defendant has to negotiate between which state to use especially if everyone is scattered across multiple states. The time and effort to decide this is usually the turn off for law enforcement especially when they have doubt that prosecution has a high chance of losing in the long run, when considering the other two prongs and Supreme Court case defenses.

Prong 3: “Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” uses national level standards. What a community might find obscene and offensive can actually be different than a national view and it might have redeeming value instead. For example, AO3 (impossibly) finds my fiction as obscene, but national powers can find my work to hold artistic value instead, thus the prong fails. This can actually be the case because all of my fanfiction is created with artistic value. The production of fanfiction is handwritten (or rather, hand-typed), taken from one’s creative mind and fleshed out into a tangible form with the intent to express artistic creativity. The national level doesn’t just look at something and say, “oh, it describes sex, it’s obscene”, they have to carefully examine every chained word, sentence, and paragraph, and then determine if it is written about sex with the intent of prurient interest, or if it actually holds (even a little bit) of invoking an artistic connection with the reader. In regards to written fiction, there is a difference between extremely explicit and nasty smut and only smut, versus a piece that has a portion of sex, but also contains excerpts that have artistic values of romance, comedy, drama, etc, or even just an artist expressing their talent/ability to weave a captivating plot or action. (And it takes a group effort of experienced, unbiased, literate people with basic inference skills to determine this, and not the inexperienced and young mentally-incapacitated who are easily offended by things that disturb them.) If it is found that any of the mentioned values are contained within the art piece at all, Prong 3 fails.

—–**********—–

Whew, so that was the Miller test! So, taking all that in mind, when the Miller test somehow passes all 3 prongs on my NSFW fanfiction (which, again, is highly impossible), only then can you step up to Title 18 because Title 18 requires a piece of obscene material to use for its guidelines. You cannot just take something and deem it obscene at first glance, it has to be legally considered obscene by the Miller test first, and to do that, you need to actually be an law enforcement officer and slap the test onto someone’s work with the intent of prosecuting them, and not just testing their work for the fun of it. And to do that, you need to know my personal information, which AO3 is not going to provide at all because it goes against their Privacy Policy.

That said, if my private information was somehow disclosed (which I can also sue for, by the way), the first barrier you need to overcome is the Miller test, not Title 18′s obscenity laws. You cannot skip the Miller test unless it is, without a doubt, real child pornography. In such a case, you skip ahead a lot of steps and get sent to prison ASAP. But because all of the material I create is based on fiction, you need the Miller test, no ifs and/or buts!

And because the Miller test fails at least two prongs when using any of my fanfiction… then there you go, I’m legally safe! (On two points at that, usually people get a close call with just one prong.) So I’m actually not going to go farther in depth on Title 18 (1466A specifically) for you, because we’re just not going to reach that point with me.

I’m also going to leave a point for the Miller test that you should consider as well:

The Miller test is not just something you can use on everyone freely. It is a Supreme Court test that requires time, money, and effort. The Miller test will only usually come into play when a convicted child predator is on parole or been released on conditions that he not have in his possession any type of child pornography—real or fictional. To judges and lawyers, it’s not worth the hassle (time, money, effort) to arrest John Doe who has no criminal record just because he created content (fictional, at that) that made someone uncomfortable.

But remember this only applies to U.S.! There are indeed some countries in the world that prohibit even the creation or viewing of fictional children in sexual situations. I don’t fall in those countries if it wasn’t obvious, but for those that do, I would suggest reading on your local laws.

And that should be it! Any more questions, feel free to keep asking! I’m going to tag this post as a reference though so that people can come back to this if they want.

[marymosley]

Role of Courts in Indian Cinema

I do not want my house to be walled in all the sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any – Mahatma Gandhi

  INTRODUCTION

  Indian cinema attracts a wide range of viewers and is one of the largest cinema hubs in the world. In FY 2019, the box office revenue in India was INR 142 billion, a number that is mind-boggling.[1] Apart from the fondness towards cinemas, as per the statistics, going for movies is the cheapest outing option available to a family of four.[2] Now, let’s flip back to a time wherein you were eagerly waiting for a movie to hit the theatres so that you could go and watch its first show on the first day. How badly would you have resented wherein just one week before the release had the movie been banned? The movies being banned in India is not a new phenomenon and its reasons include the explicit portrayal of sexual content, the political angle attached to the movie, if it hurts the religious sentiments of the people, or if there is an incorrect portrayal of a public figure.

  Movies exhibit ground reality and it is one of the most captivating forms of audiovisual which can have a huge impact on the viewers’ minds. It gains the attention of the viewers quickly due to the combination of different factors such as the intense light of the screen, the sound, you can watch the characters come to life and the environment of the theatre as we all know eliminates any form of distraction.[3] Hence, the Apex Court has ruled that it is essential to certify the movies as Unrestricted (“UA”), Adult (“A”), Under Parental Guidance (“UA”), or  Restricted to any special class of persons (“S”), before it hits the cinemas, as it can easily motivate and influence people and hence cannot be equated with other forms of expression or communication.[4]

  Film censorship was introduced in the colonial era and it continues to exist even today. The controversies regarding film censorship by the Central Board of Film Certification (“CBFC”) and the States is not something that is novel. States have been equally involved in banning movies. For instance, the Padmavat row, there was a huge hue and cry regarding this movie right from the inception, the sets were burnt, death threats were made, and all of this took place without even knowing the actual content of the movie. The Supreme Court came to the rescue of the artists and held that the States cannot ban the movies once it has been cleared by the CBFC. Further, it is difficult to understand the relevance of changing the name from Padmavati to Padmavat and the difference it made in the end.

  CENSORSHIP VIS-À-VIS ARTICLE 19

  Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and expression subject to reasonable restrictions. Article 19(1)(a) does not list down the different mediums of expressions that fall within its ambit. However, motion pictures are one of the forms of expression and hence receive the protection of Article 19.

  Article 19 mentions “freedom of speech and expression” which is significantly different from the mere mentioning of “speech and expression”. This article protects the former one and not the latter one as the former one recognizes the fact that a person has the liberty to express his/her ideas but that does not mean he/she can say whatever or whenever they want to.[5]

  It has been held by the Apex Court that movies are much different from other mediums of expression, for instance, the printed word, and hence, it needs to be certified and the certification is well within the scope of Article 19. Pre-censorship was held to be constitutionally valid in the landmark case of K.A. Abbas v. Union of India[6] (“K.A. Abbas”).

  The Central Board of Film Certification (nomenclature has been changed from Central Board of Film Censorship), has been established under the Cinematograph Act, 1972 (“Act”) and as the name suggests, it is for certification of movies.  However, under Section 4 of the Act, the CBFC has also been given the power to refuse the sanctioning of a film for public exhibition. Despite the change in name, there is a little change in the role of CBFC and it continues to ban movies on hare-brained grounds. Once the movie has been certified it should be left to the viewers’ decision as to whether they wish to watch the movie or not.

  The CBFC has been resistant to change and the same is evident from the fact that in the year 2002 when Vijay Anand, the Chairman of CBFC, had proposed changes in the censorship law and had also suggested that films with explicit sexual content should be portrayed too, the government prevented the entire action and did not even consider to look into the matter[7]. It is pertinent to note the observations of the Shyam Benegal Committee constituted to recommend guidelines for certification of movies and it had suggested that the role of CBFC should be limited to mere certification of movies and that the system of suggesting alterations in the movie should be completely done away with.[8] The Committee had submitted its report in April, 2016, however, until now no action has been taken.

  Ever wondered whether the content being shown on the OTT platforms such as Amazon Prime, Netflix, or Disney+Hotstar is censored or not or how do they manage to portray content that has explicit sexuality and extreme violence.  In response to an RTI filed by India Today TV, it has been confirmed that neither the CBFC nor the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology regulates the content being shown on the OTT platforms. Thus, it can be seen that this is a positive step towards the premise that it should be left on the viewers’ choice as to whether they want to watch a particular content or not. A similar approach should be followed by CBFC too and the powers of the CBFC should be restricted to mere certification of movies.

  THE ROLE OF JUDICIARY

  Under the Indian Constitution, the powers and functions have been allocated between the three organs, i.e. the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, and all the three are required to work independently. However, another unique feature of our Constitution is the checks and balance system, wherein one organ keeps a check on the other organ and the same applies to the CBFC as well wherein the judiciary keeps a check on the CBFC. The British had kept the area of film censorship completely outside the purview of the judiciary, however, in the K.A. Abbas case, it was argued that there should lie an appeal with the courts, which the government agreed to and it was observed by the Apex Court that the same was necessary to remove the stigma around the film censorship in India.

  It cannot be denied that the role of the judiciary in the case of Indian cinemas has brought in great relief to the filmmakers and audience and its role cannot be neglected as it has been massive. One such precedent is the case of Vinod Kumar Kanojia v. UOI[9], wherein the petitioner claimed that the use of the word ‘dhobi’ in the movie Dhobi Ghat is an insult to their community and that has affected and dented the feeling of the community. The Court said that firstly, the name in no manner can be offensive to a particular community, and secondly, it pointed out that the PIL’s were being misused to gain personal interests and the issues raised have no nexus with the public interest. Had there been a violation of any act or rules by the CBFC, they would have interfered, but just because the name of the movie is Dhobi Ghat, it does not fall within that sphere of protection.

  Another such precedent is the case of Rashtravaddi Shiv Sena v. Sanjay Leela Bhansali[10], wherein the Delhi High Court rightly pointed out that our Constitution grants not only freedom of speech but freedom after speech. The petitioners contended that the name of the movie is Ramleela and it gives a wrong impression of the movie being based on Lord Ram’s life whereas on the other hand the movie is completely based on violence and is filled with vulgarity. The petitioners further contended that the movie deliberately aimed at hurting the religious sentiments of the people. The Court said that the Constitution provides for prior restraint, however, the weighing scale needs to be favored towards the artists who should have room to showcase their art in the form of movies. The petitioners had admitted that they had not watched the movie. The Court further pointed out that the title, scenes, and dialogues should not be judged from a weak-minded person’s point of view. The movie was released and it crossed the 100 crore mark at the box office, which again shows that the final decision should rest with the viewers.[11]  

  The Bombay High Court in a recent judgment, Children’s Film Society v. CBFC, slammed the CBFC and held that CBFC should not be the one deciding what a person should watch. The CBFC in this case had granted a U/A certificate to the movie Chidiakhana. The order of the Bombay High Court made some really strong observations about CBFC and it further said that the role of CBFC will have to be redefined. The Court pointed out that merely by deleting one or two scenes from the movie would not change the ground reality and that movies can be used as a medium to educate children about the issues existing in the society. The Bombay High Court also noted that the role of the CBFC is to certify the movies and not censor them.[12]

  It is not just the CBFC but even the state governments have played an active role in banning the movies. In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram[13] case, the state government banned the movie, Ore Oru Gramathile. Further, when challenged in the Madras High Court, the “U” certificate granted to the movie was revoked on the ground that the release of the movie would lead to demonstrations in the state. However, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court and held that the freedom of speech and expression cannot be compromised upon, due to the threats of demonstration and violence.

  The movie Da Vinci Code despite being given an ‘A’ certificate by the CBFC was banned in several states on the ground that it hurt the religious sentiments of the Christian and the Muslim community. Further, a PIL was filed to ban the movie and the selling of the original novel on which the movie was based, throughout India, which was rejected by the Apex Court. The Supreme Court further pointed out that the movie had not been banned in any of the Christian dominated countries and there was no legitimate ground brought forward by the petitioners to ban the movie in India.[14] Later on, the High Courts of various states revoked the ban.[15] The Madras High court while revoking the ban held that[16]:

  “When our Courts have considered it their duty and responsibility to intervene when even the Central Board of Film Certification interferes with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, the duty and responsibility is heavier in this case where the film has got the Censors’ approval and yet, the petitioners have been prevented from exhibiting the film by an order which has no reasonable basis. Therefore, the impugned order is void for contravention of the fundamental right.”

  The Apex Court, in the case of Harinder S. Sikka v. Union of India has made it amply clear that once the movie has been certified by the CBFC, no body, group, association or individual can obstruct the screening of the movie. It further noted that once the movie has been certified, unless the certification is modified or altered by a superior authority, there should not be any hindrance caused in releasing the movie.[17]

  CONCLUSION

  The list of the number of movies banned in India is endless right from the first movie that was banned by the CBFC i.e. Neel Akshar Neechey to other movies such as Bandit Queen, Madras Café, Fire, Final Solution, and so on. The CBFC, sometimes, instead of refusing to grant the certification asks the movie producers to remove certain parts, i.e. cut scenes from the movies, for instance, movies like Padmavat, Udta Punjab,  and Hava Aane Dey were asked to cut out several scenes from the movie. No doubt, the essence of the movie is lost altogether when so many parts are required to be cut.

  However, banning the movies is not the solution and the same is evident from the fact that when the movie India’s Daughter was released on YouTube, after being banned in India, it received thousands of views. Sadly, the movie was again taken down as requested by the government. On the other hand, the judiciary in India has played an active role in upholding the freedom of speech and expression of the artists along with ensuring the need for certification. Moreover, the courts have not shied away from its responsibilities to ensure that the essence of the Indian Constitution is always upheld. Further, it has been rightly pointed out by Mahatma Gandhi that the windows should be kept open and different cultures should be allowed to be blown around the house. Maybe, someday the essence of his words will be reflected in the way Indian movies are certified.

        [1] Sanika Diwanji, Film Industry in India – Statistics and Facts (Jan. 22, 2020), https://ift.tt/31zQWHU

[2] Pratik et al., If not cinemas, where would families go?, OTT vs Cinemas: “The new kingmakers have the industry’s veto power” (June 10, 2020), https://ift.tt/2XBsbKn

[3] S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 2 S.C.C. 574, 592 (Mad. H.C. 1989).

[4] Ira Bhaskar, Vetting Important, Do we need a film censor? (April 13, 2017 : 23:28 PM)   https://ift.tt/2XGgORk

[5] M.P. Singh, Clause 1(a): Freedom of Speech and Expression 136 (13th ed. 2019).

[6] 2 S.C.R. 446, (1971).

[7] Someswar Bhowmik, Politics of Film Censorship: Limits of Tolerance,  Economic and Political Weekly 3574, 3574 (2002) https://www.jstor.org/stable/4412538?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A81b32afab6d9b4c96b3c8fa6e558c867&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[8] Report Summary: Report of the Expert Committee on CBFC, https://ift.tt/31Af6ls

[9] 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3344.

[10] 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4085.

[11] Goliyon ke raas-leela Ram-Leela enters Rs. 100 crore club, Deepika’s fourth blockbuster of the year (Nov. 26, 2013 : 19:52 PM), https://ift.tt/3ikXpx3

[12] Bombay HC raps CBFC over kids film certification, says it will not decide what people should watch, Economic Times, (Jul. 06, 2019), https://ift.tt/2C9aZUU

[13] 2 S.C.C. 574, 592 (Mad. H.C. 1989)

[14] SC rejects plea to ban “Da Vinci Code”, Times of India, (Jun. 13, 2006), https://ift.tt/33GinCw

[15] Potter Stewart, The Ban Story, Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself, https://ift.tt/2k8wNXh

[16] Sony Pictures Releasing of India Ltd. v. State of T.N., 2006 SCC OnLine Mad 591.

[17] SC allows release of movie on Guru Nanak’s life, says Censor Board’s approval is final (April 10, 2018 : 05:08 PM), https://ift.tt/3in0Pzo

The post Role of Courts in Indian Cinema appeared first on Legal Desire.

Role of Courts in Indian Cinema published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[nulawtoronto]

New Changes to Animal Cruelty Laws in Canada

A new law has been passed to crack down on animal cruelty in Canada.  Bill C-84, “An Act to Amend the Criminal Code Pertaining to Bestiality and Animal Fighting”, addresses many flaws that are found in the current Criminal Code with respect to animals in Canada.

WHAT IS BESTIALITY?

The new law, Bill C-84, was created partly in response to a 2016 Supreme Court of Canada decision (R. v. D.L.W.) that found a convicted sexual offender not guilty of bestiality related to charges arising out of sexual activity involving one of his stepdaughters and the family dog.

The majority of the justices of the highest court in Canada ruled that the Criminal Code provisions on bestiality did not effectively define which sexual acts with animals are illegal.  They essentially requested that the government revisit the definition.

Justice Thomas Cromwell, on behalf of the majority of the court, wrote:

Penetration has always been understood to be an essential element of bestiality.  Parliament adopted the term without adding a definition of it, and the legislative history and evolution of the relevant provisions show no intent to depart from the well-understood legal meaning of the term.  … Any expansion of criminal liability for his offence is within Parliament’s exclusive domain.

The new law specifically provides an update of the legal definition of bestiality to broaden the definition and include any contact for a sexual purpose between a person and an animal (previously there had to be evidence of penetration before charges could be made).

Anyone convicted of bestiality in Canada will now be added to Canada’s National Sex Offenders Registry and can be banned from owning animals. 

According to the CEO of Humane Canada, Barbara Cartwright:

Many studies have proven a clear link between animal abuse and child abuse, so adding convicted animal abusers to the National Sex Offenders Registry protects children as well as animals.

HOW WILL THE LAW CHANGE REGARDING ANIMAL FIGHTING?

The new legislation will prohibit promoting or profiting from fighting or baiting animals, as well as breeding or training animals to fight.  The law also prohibits the building or maintaining of any arena established for the purpose of animal fighting. 

Furthermore, the new law applies to anyone who “in any manner encourages, aids, promotes, arranges, assists, receives money for or takes part in the fighting or baiting of animals.”

There is currently a growing trend of animal fighting, which occurs covertly and online.  This trend is also increasingly linked to guns and gangs.

One incredibly dreadful activity is called “trunking”, whereby two dogs are sealed together in the trunk of a car.  The car is driven around as the dogs fight to the death.  Eventually the car is stopped, and the results of the dog fight is revealed to an online audience.

There are several other important elements found in Bill C-84 to protect animals in Canada that include:

Granting a judge the discretion to make an order banning an offender from owning or living with an animal for a period of time up to a lifetime ban;

Granting a judge the ability to order the offender to make financial restitution to a person or organization that cared for an animal which was harmed by an offence;

Repealing a section of the Criminal Code that required a peace officer to seize and destroy any animals found fighting in a cockpit.

“FREE WILLY” BILL ALSO PASSES IN CANADA

The government has also passed Bill S-203, “The Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act”, often referred to as the “Free Willy Act”.  This law phases out the captivity of cetaceans (i.e. whales, dolphins and porpoises) in Canada, except for rescues, rehabilitation, licensed scientific research or in the cetaceans’ best interests.  

The new law also prohibits the trade, possession, capture and breeding of cetaceans.  Those acting in contravention of the new law may be fined up to $200,000.

The law does provide an exception for those that are taking care of an injured or distressed animal in need of assistance.  Also, researchers must obtain a license from the government in order to hold a cetacean for research purposes.

The Vancouver Aquarium and Marineland in Niagara Falls are the only two facilities in Canada that are allowed to house cetaceans and keep the animals that they have as long as they do not breed them.  The Vancouver Aquarium has a Pacific white-sided dolphin and Marineland has an orca and more than 50 beluga whales.

Lori Marino of the Whale Sanctuary Project wrote in her statement about the new law:

This is a major victory for cetaceans.  They are among the most cognitively complex of all animals.  Confining them to life in a concrete tank is truly unbearable for them.

If you have any questions regarding charges that have been laid against you or regarding your legal rights, please contact the knowledgeable criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947.  Our skilled criminal lawyers have significant experience defending a wide range of criminal charges and protecting our client’s rights.  For your convenience, we offer a 24-hour telephone service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice.

Full Article: https://criminallawoshawa.com/new-changes-to-animal-cruelty-laws-in-canada%ef%bb%bf/

[lischool]

Lancers - One of the Most Inventive Schools in Gurgaon

Learners of today will be leaders of tomorrow; keeping this thought in mind Lancers International School, one of the top schools in Gurgaon, organized a Leadership Summit on the occasion of the Investiture Ceremony of Student’s Council.

The summit brought together the city’s finest leaders under one roof to inculcate the values and ethics of a responsible leadership. The ceremony comprised of three events- keynote address, panel discussion, and oath-taking ceremony of the council.

The key dignitaries on the occasion were- Dr. Navneet Sharma (Head, school of competition law & Market Regulation, Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Corporate Affairs,Government of India), Vassilis Skronias (Head of the Office, Plenipotentiary Minister, Embassy of Greece, Economic & Commercial Affairs Office), Captain Sanjay Raina (Senior Commander,Boeing-737 fleet Jet Airways (India) Ltd.), Abuk Nikanora (Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of the Republic of South Sudan), Amit Narang (Director, IFS, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India).

The ceremony started with an extravagant performance by the school band followed by beautiful songs performed by a student. Dr. Navneet Sharma, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, gave a keynote speech on ‘The Dark side of the Leadership’ addressing the students of Lancers, one of the top schools in Gurgaon.

The address was enlightening and important to the new student council. Dr. Sharma spoke about respect, micromanagement, a delegation of work, and the intricacies of people managed in an impact packed address.

Speaking about the concept of Leadership, Dr. Navneet Sharma said, “There are two sides of leadership i.e. sunny side and dark side. And you become a good leader only when you stay on the sunny side of being a leader. A true leader sides with ethical practices has foresight, and always ready for the risks and challenges ahead. A leader is the soul of an organization who holds it together and motivates others.”

The ceremony continued with a panel discussion on the topic responsibly Leadership, Mission(I’M)Possible’ moderated by Prachin Pant, the newly elected Head Girl, and Sahithi Macharla, student editor.

The panelists engaged in an active argument about the nurturing of responsible human beings, the argument about empathy and sympathy, about micromanagement, the theory of cause and effect, and many more exciting topics.

After the session, the Investiture ceremony kick-started with the introduction of post holders and the newly elected council members were bestowed with badges. The solemn oath was

administered by Mr. Y.K. Sindwani, Head, Lancers International School, one of the top schools in Gurgaon. The charter of duties was presented to the head boy and the head girl.

The event concluded with a speech of gratitude by the Head Girl, expressing her optimism for the year to come, and enlightening the student body of the goals of this year’s council. And the head Boy delivered the Vote of Thanks.

Beauty and the Beast — PYP Annual Play at Lancers, One of the Top Schools in Gurgaon

On 27th of April 2018, the Primary students of grades 2–5 at Lancers, one of the top schools in Gurgaon, presented a dazzling display of talent in an adaptation of the fairy tale ‘Beauty and the Beast’.

‘Beauty and the Beast’ is a children’s story that was first written in 1740. It is a story that focuses on the importance of love, kindness, and inner beauty. It is a romance between a captive woman and the monster. The story portrays that no matter how ugly a situation appears, there is always a silver lining; one must have the patience to wait out the storm and conquer one’s fears.

It has taken a lot of work and a close collaboration between the students and teachers to put on such a high-quality performance as Beauty and the Beast.

What made it special was the spectacular performance of the main characters: Maria and Suhana as Belle, OM as the Beast, Devaarsh as the prince, Shunnosuke as Gaston, Anandi as Mrs. Potts, Saki as Lumiere, Tejas as LeFou, Kevin as Maurice, Rehaan as Cogsworth, Aarav as Chip and the outstanding dance performance from the rest of the students from each class.

The whole cast made great efforts in practice and rehearsals over weeks which boosted their standard of acting and amazed the audience in bringing the classical fairy-tale to life.

This year’s Annual Play at Lancers, one of the top schools in Gurgaon, also proved that the spirit of collaboration and creativity within Lancers’ community is truly alive and well; while echoing the message that students should be presented with ample opportunities to shine and to showcase their talents; be it through performing arts, sports or any other extracurricular endeavour. In short, such transformative learning experiences are vital to students’ overall development and future success.

Moana — Early Years Annual Play at Lancers, One of the Best Schools in Gurgaon

On the 6th of April 2018, Early Years at Lancers, one of the best schools in Gurgaon, held its Annual Production. The nursery, kindergarten, and grade 1 students presented a beautiful play MOANA.

Moana is the daughter of a chief and will someday inherit her father’s position, but she’s furious when Maui, a tattooed, muscle-bound demigod, who calls her a princess.

Moana is not only part of a dynastic line but also a girl off on an adventure in the company of a cute animal sidekick. So not just any princess, in other words: a Disney princess. She may be on a quest to save her island and restore ecological balance to the planet, but Moana is also upholding the Disney character.

It has taken a lot of hard work and a close collaboration between the students and teachers to put on such a high-quality performance as MOANA, making Lancers one of the best schools in Gurgaon.

What made it special was the spectacular performance of the characters and the outstanding dance performance from the students of each class. The whole cast made great efforts in practice and rehearsals over weeks which boosted their standard of acting and amazed the audience in bringing up the Disney story.

This year’s Annual Play also proved that the spirit of collaboration and creativity within Lancers’ community is truly alive and well; while echoing the message that students should be presented with ample opportunities to shine and to showcase their talents; be it through performing arts, sports or any other extracurricular endeavor. In short, such transformative learning experiences are vital to students’ overall development and future success.

[oldfilmsnewfans-blog]

An Intangible Good: Butler's "The Little Colonel" 

     As Sennwald writes in his review of The Little Colonel, in 1935, "the Shirley Temple situation [was] rapidly getting out of hand" (The New York Times). Just twenty years post-slavery, during the Reconstruction era, this ray of sunshine took Hollywood by storm, specifically in this film directed by David Butler. As Belton writes in his chapter on the "Studio System" in American Cinema/American Culture, anthropologist Hortense Powdermaker once coined Hollywood as "a dream factory" (64) - in other words, a paradox that cinema possesses characteristics of both a booming industry as well as a profound art form. Belton points out intangible goods as direct products of this dream factory - the fact that unlike other industry that produces definite commodities, cinema can be hit or miss. What determines the success of a particular film often stems from the cultural norms of the time, or pertinent ideologies. In The Little Colonel, Temple's performance as the progressive young girl, Lloyd, embodies the themes of reconciling family life, as well as integration of people of all colors. Not only does the dream factory reflect current social conditions but also equally results in paradigm attitudinal shifts in viewers, as Sennwald delineates in The New York Times, "... bring[s] out the best in everyone who sees it." Collectively, the mise-en-scène, combined with progressive characters of The Little Colonel, exemplify how the dream factory's intangible goods fuel cinema's power as a medium to influence society and create new norms.

     In his third chapter on "Style," Belton describes "mise-en-scène" as the relationship between every element within a shot to the actors, decor, lighting, camera position, etc. (47); The Little Colonel's cinematic style effectively portrays the theme of lingering segregation as well as the evident division between the North and the South, through which the director presents the audience with the choice to perpetuate racism or embrace progressive thought, as does Lloyd (Temple) in her naiveté. Firstly, the brief opening montage that portrays Kentucky in the 1970s with dim lighting paints an image of the upper echelon of the South - the few angles of the plantation, then transition to its interior with an immediate focus on the harp player and the beautiful sounds of the instrument. The set dressing (e.g., impressive chandeliers, ornate furniture and tapestries, and long windows), along with the fancy and enviable character wardrobes, demonstrate the apparent luxuries of the aristocratic South. Butler juxtaposes these White characters along with their elaborate costuming and comfortability within their social sphere with Walker, the servant, as he comes close to knocking over a vase. The Colonel reprimands Walker for his careless behavior. However, Butler makes a point to emphasize one of the male characters dressed in a suit in one of the initial two-shots thanking Walker for a drink - showing gratitude to a person of alleged inferior social status. In a split second, nonetheless, this minor character is then quick to madden at Walker's near-accident, almost angering merely for the sake of calling out a man of color for a potential wrongdoing. In this way, the combination of mise-en-scène serves the opening sequence in establishing a tone for the film - the grey area between breaking free of the remnants of slavery but holding on to both White and Southern supremacy. Secondly, Butler makes excellent play of colors throughout the film, especially by contrasting Colonel Lloyd's (Grandfather's) stark white suit with the mud thrust upon him by his granddaughter in the scene with the children playing in the woods; this evokes the question in the viewer as to whether "Black-ness" tarnishes White purity in the 1930s or if the two can coexist in peace. Finally, Butler implements the motif of the flower, specifically pink, throughout the film, to symbolize new life blossoming, as well as maintain a light tone or sense of hope for the reconciliation of Lloyd's family at the film's culmination. In a way, young Lloyd channels this message of the pink flower, evident in her attendance of the all-Black baptism; she stands out as the precious pearl in the crowd, yet feels completely at-home with her friends of color. Butler's skillful threading of mise-en-scène throughout the movie serves the overall idea that a single film can stimulate thought in a viewer, or simply encourage questioning of the current social climate.

     The Little Colonel's characters vary on the scale of socially-acclimated to, initially, stuck within a disdain for both union of the nation and integration of races, revealing the dangers of remaining caught within old school values that no longer serve current (1930s) increasingly liberal ideologies. Young Lloyd serves as hope for the future, for more untainted, open-minded, and confident young women who embrace all walks of life. For Lloyd, Mom Beck (Becky) means the world to the young girl who seems not to pay much regard to skin color but rather content of character. Lloyd's strong moral compass leads her to separate the ethically improprietous (i.e., the two men who attempt to rob her father of his land deed) from the morally sound (i.e., the entire Black cast). Elizabeth, Lloyd's mother, also boasts a tight-knit relationship with her maid, the Mammy archetype, with whom Elizabeth seeks solace while her husband, Jack, leaves home and then falls ill. Both Elizabeth and Young Lloyd appreciate the story's Help and treat the maids with respect. Elder Colonel Lloyd, on the other hand, must first undergo a character transformation in order to finally embrace Jack, the Yankee, as well as begin to accept his granddaughter's penchant for spending time with the Help's children, Lily and Henry Clay. Nonetheless, he does come around by the film's resolution and drops hints at moving towards the right direction as an American, not an isolated Confederate. The fact that his granddaughter stimulates this inherent change in his stern, immovable belief system, reveals Young Lloyd's influence in her youth, underscoring the power of the young to impact the future. In support of this, Belton, in Early Film Sound, cites technological advancements that heighten a "greater realism" (233); Belton refers to the advent of sound allowing certain elements of a film to now be produced. For example, Temple's tap dancing numbers with Robinson, now with synchronized sound, further emphasize the theme of desegregation. In her work on Race and Sexuality, Orr Vered includes a D. W. Griffith quote to the essence that there can be nothing more captivating than a White girl dancing with a Negro (53). Due to technology of the time, such scenes could be filmed, adding to the verisimilitude of not only the film but also its message that two races (literally) holding hands represents (Butler's vision of) the future. Additionally, referring back to the concept of Hollywood as the dream factory, movie-making holds as a business; therefore, these controversial and provocative dance numbers within The Little Colonel's integrated musical style gain attention, advance the film, and, ultimately, expose larger audiences, both domestically and internationally, to the spectacular and fresh "now."

     To conclude, Sennwald's opinion about the Shirley Temple situation growing out of control (The New York Times) lies on a positive note. The power of one charming child star stands evident in the success of The Little Colonel and Temple's fame, still to-this-day. During a new time in Hollywood with the rise of the studios, such pieces as Butler's involved risk-taking, as with any intangible good. In this film, the comic relief, easy-to-follow plot, enthusiastic characters, and, of course, detailed mise-en-scène all equate to a solid piece of cinema. Though not each viewer's favorite, there can be no denial that the piece impacted and continues to affect its audiences in regard to opinions on post-Civil War conditions. During the 1930s Depression era, many Americans desired escapism. This film maintains its comedic tone while educating all cinema-goers on history, and, at the same time, perpetuating Hollywood as an economic stronghold, attracting consumers to the theater. (Fall 2016 FTVS 313 Student)