Re: protest nyc's proposed film and photo law

From: flick harrison (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Aug 06 2007 - 19:56:17 PDT

Ben & Marlon,

I do agree with you that breaking the rules (laws) is sometimes, even
frequently necessary (and fun). Ben, you seem to have taken
"illegality" itself as a creative concern and that's totally valid &

But surely, given the choice, if I could do an activity illegally or
do the exact same activity legally, I would rather NOT break the law.

If I can stop a bad law, that's a heckuva lot better than looking
over my shoulder the rest of my life. Parliamentary democracy is
f**ked in a number of ways but most of the public sees it as
legitimate, so when even the disengaged public can be roused against
terrible legislation, that's better for all of us: for every ten "not
in my backyard"ers who drop out of the fray soon after, there'll be
one or two newly-awakened activists.

Also, if you don't stop bad laws when you can - in this case, so far,
the signs are encouraging - then you are leaving those less reckless
to swing in the breeze. I.e. people with kids, or even people who
need clean criminal records like teachers, can't exactly afford to do
jail time the way us young punks can. Thus, allies drop away if you
let the state criminalize legitimate social activity.


On 5-Aug-07, at 12:52 AM, ben d wrote:

> I've stayed out of this so far, but finally need to weigh in. We
> need to recognize there are two kinds of artists, and perhaps
> people, in the world those who get permission and those who do shit
> by any means. Those who ask have all the reasons of the state and
> capital to back them. Neo-liberalism has been a discourse of
> closing the public sphere to the private home. At the same time
> those of us who desire the freedom to take risks and make work on
> our own terms need to fight for it. Those of us in Canada know the
> regulations imposed by the National Film Board legal department if
> we are lured into working with them. The state continues to draw
> tighter within this current time of structural adjustment on a
> global level. Capital has seized the public sphere and those of us
> who resist will be illegalized, will we stop? I know i won't,
> almost all my shooting is already illegal. This struggle matters to
> fight the rise of control but only to those of us effected by it
> will fight it.
> First they came for.... (In NYC: the squats, the bars without
> cabaret licences, the graffitti, the parks, the rent controlled
> apartments, protesters and activists, the filmmakers and artists
> (as ridiculous as it seems), next?
> All that being said, i want the industrial film crews out of my
> neighbourhood. They are here for the aesthetic and they pay the
> city for it. What about an air-horn campaign every time a sync clap
> sounds in marginalized neighbourhoods?
> Hope all are well and sleeping off the spleen.
> Ben
> "It is a society, and not a technique, which has made the cinema
> like this. It could have been historical examinations, theory,
> essay, memoirs. It could have been the film I am making at this
> moment." - Guy Debord
>> From: Cari Machet <email suppressed>
>> Reply-To: Experimental Film Discussion List
>> <email suppressed>
>> To: email suppressed
>> Subject: Re: protest nyc's proposed film and photo law
>> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 01:59:57 -0400
>> On 8/4/07, owen <email suppressed> wrote:
>> >
>> > I was wondering when you'd resort to name calling.
>> >
>> it's no resort
>> it is the use of the amagdyla part of jimmy's brain
>> he has retreated there because he knows he has no argument - no
>> logic base
>> and that is where all little bad boys go
>> it is the reptilian part of the brain - yes it is going back that
>> far in
>> evolution
>> pathetic
>> c
>> Owen
>> >
>> > On Aug 4, 2007, at 9:22 PM, Jim Carlile <email suppressed> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > What a bunch of condescending morons. And I thought people in NY
>> were
>> > supposed to be smarter?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >>Jim, are you one of those people who's never done anything which
>> > conflicts with authority? That's why >>you've never been
>> reluctant to ask
>> > permission? You love rules because it weeds out the riff-raff? A
>> few years
>> > ago students at Valley College in L.A. got into big trouble--
>> they were
>> > filming an assigned public service message, and when they showed
>> up as gang
>> > members one night in some alley in North Hollywood, all hell
>> broke loose.
>> > Neighbors freaked, police rounded them all up, and quite a
>> complication
>> > ensued. Point? Get permits. If you are refused, that's another
>> issue...then
>> > the free speech factors kick in.
>> > >>You're not seriously comparing two people having a 31-minute
>> picnic with
>> > a cell phone camera (thus >>needing a film permit) to a bunch of
>> people
>> > simulating a gang fight in the alley at night?
>> > >>This is getting ludicrous, but okay:
>> > >.>"Sure, you've got a film permit, homeboy. Keep your hands out
>> of your
>> > pockets."
>> > >>Jeez.
>> > >>Talk about your ridiculous examples.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> > Get a sneak peek of the all-new<
>> memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>
>> > .
>> >
>> >
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For
>> > info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>> >
>> >
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For
>> > info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>> >
>> >
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live Hotmail. Even hotter than before. Get a better look
> now.
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.