Welcome to the new Film-Tech Forums!
The forum you are looking at is entirely new software. Because there was no good way to import all of the old archived data from the last 20 years on the old software, everyone will need to register for a new account to participate.
To access the original forums from 1999-2019 which are now a "read only" status, click on the "FORUM ARCHIVE" link above.
Please remember registering with your first and last REAL name is mandatory. This forum is for professionals and fake names are not permitted. To get to the registration page click here.
Once the registration has been approved, you will be able to login via the link in the upper right corner of this page.
Also, please remember while it is highly encouraged to upload an avatar image to your profile, is not a requirement. If you choose to upload an avatar image, please remember that it IS a requirement that the image must be a clear photo of your face.
Thank you!
Haven't found anything about the lawsuit, but did find the list of demands that was cut from the first wire service story.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Atlanta Constitution
August 5, 1937 AtlantaConstitution_8_5_1937.png
...if the First Amendment applied to the states at the time...
Even if Federal law didn't apply to the states, there are many states that have statutes that either include Federal laws by reference or else they have their own similar laws.
There is a Federal statute, Title 18 §1983 that makes civil rights violations "under color of law" an offense but Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 11§H is a similar statute but it excludes the "color of law" requirement, meaning that ANYBODY, not just police can be sued for violating civil rights. On top of that, Federal § 1984 and Mass. §I state that, if the plaintiff prevails, the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's legal costs.
These statutes were enacted after the Civil War, during the "Jim Crow" era to prevent police and other officials from using things like the old, "Busted Taillight" trick against Black people just to harass them. (Okay, I know that cars weren't invented in those times. I'm just using "Busted Taillight" as an example.)
The §1984 and §I parts of the statue were put in just because of what you say. It prevents officials or other people from doing bad things because they think that the other person doesn't have the money to hire a lawyer.
Many other states have similar. Plus, as you say, many Federal civil rights statues also apply to states, now.
The problem is that, in order for a law to have any real effect, somebody has to sue somebody else. There are still many lawyers who don't know the ins and outs of laws like Section 1983 or MGL Section H.
Yeah, "under color of law" was my argument in high school for wanting to sue a movie theatre for not letting me see a movie because the ratings were the law (which I knew they weren't). My parents wouldn't go along, dammit.
I'm willing to bet, however, that the law in Arkansas or Georgia in 1937 says, in legalese, "you can kick anyone out of your theatre for anything you want any time you wanted" and there wasn't a judge or jury in either of those states that would rule otherwise if the defendants were causing a disruption. Try booing a judge sometime.
And that doesn't even take into account what Southern courts thought of the Federal civil rights laws.
I couldn't find any further reference to the lawsuit and injunction from Martin, so it is hard to know what their arguments were and how they fared. Anyone can file for an injunction, and since the Booing Club was openly advertising to cause a disruption, not to express their opinion, and in a private business. They would pretty much have given up any First Amendment claim. After all, the full quote is "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." The problem is the panic, not the shout. These guys may not be causing panic, but they are intentionally causing a disruption that effects other people.
BTW, I've run across several instances of people, usually kids, falsely yelling fire in a theatre where people were injured or killed in the panic. Theatres burned a lot more frequently when they were made of wood. But I digress.
As for the injunction against the newspaper, it certainly wouldn't stand today. But when you think about the Times v Sullivan case that created the libel exception for public figures, that was the result of suing a newspaper for running an ad. That happened in the early sixties, so suing papers for ads may have been effective in 1937. There is certainly an "clear and present danger" argument to be made.
In 1937 the First Amendment still wasn't fully applied to the states, and state constitutions were enforced with a very different vision of free speech then we have now - especially in the South. Even if these booing clubs were will and able to fight these injunctions, they would be hard pressed to create a successful free speech argument.
I haven't got a problem with a theater saying, "Patrons who cause a disturbance will be asked to leave."
If the people who formed the Booing Club caused a disturbance by booing too often, I would certainly tell them to be quiet or else they must leave. Since the presence of such a Booing Club was advertised in the newspaper, I (as owner of a theater) think it perfectly logical to place my own ad to that effect and try to have it placed on the same page as the club's ad.
It might be a person's right to protest, which I believe in, but it's also every other person's right to watch a movie without being disturbed. It is a movie theater's job to ensure just that.
When I was in college and some presenter (professor, administrator, speech-maker, etc.) said or did something that people didn't like, there might be a loud "Boo! Hiss!" from many members of the audience, in unison, followed by a loud round of applause. The whole thing would last, maybe, two seconds. Then the place would go dead silent. Of course, the prof. wouldn't like it and he might have grimaced at the audience but, unless somebody was causing a real disturbance, the speech would continue.
Even though behavior like that was considered "rowdy," most people considered it a person's right to protest like that.
I think we are pretty much on the same page. The booers are allowed to express their opinion, non-disruptively and the theatre owners right to eject them supersedes their right to express their opinion in a disruptive way.
I would suggest they exercise their right to protest by picketing the theatre, but the 1930's were when anti-picketting laws really took off and they would probably get arrested (or at least harassed) in a small Georgia town for doing so.
Here's one for the fast food connoisseurs, from the Seattle Times:
Manager accused of urinating in milkshake mix at Vancouver Arby’s
A Vancouver, Washington, man stands accused of urinating into milkshake mix, which was then served to between 30 and 40 people, while working as a manager at the Mill Plain Arby’s restaurant in October.
Stephen S. Sharp, 29, appeared Friday in Clark County Superior Court on a new allegation of second-degree assault with sexual motivation. He initially appeared Wednesday on suspicion of four counts each of possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct and dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
Judge David Gregerson raised Sharp’s bail Friday from $5,000 to $40,000. He is scheduled to be arraigned May 25.
When detectives executed a search warrant on Sharp’s phone while investigating the child porn allegations, they found a 16-second video showing someone urinating into a bag of milkshake mix, according to a probable cause affidavit. The video’s metadata showed it was recorded Oct. 30 at the Arby’s restaurant located at 221 N.E. 104th Ave.
Another manager at the Arby’s told detectives that on the day the video was taken, the restaurant sold at least one ice cream float and about 30 to 40 milkshakes, court records state.
Sharp allegedly admitted to police that he’d urinated into the milkshake bag at least twice but claimed he was “almost sure” that he threw the bag away after. He told detectives that if he didn’t throw the bag away, it would have been added to other mix by the next shift and served to people, court records state.
To quote Patches O'Houlihan in Dodge Ball: "Is it necessary for me to drink my own urine? No. But, but I do it anyway. It's sterile and I like the taste."
Ryanair forcing South Africans to do Afrikaans tests to prove passports are real
South Africans have said being forced to take tests in Afrikaans to verify their passports is ‘discrimination’.
Multiple South Africans have recently had to answer general knowledge questions in Afrikaans to enter the UK or Ireland, despite this not being a rule officially enforced by either country.
The seemingly new policy is Ryanair’s effort to combat a ‘high prevalence in fraudulent South African passports’, the airline told Metro.co.uk.
It comes after government officials were arrested for allegedly running an illegal operation to sell fake passports for £258 (R5,000).
Afrikaans is just one of the country’s 11 official languages and is spoken daily by about 14% of the population.
Dinesh Joseph, 45, who speaks English, told Metro.co.uk the test felt like ‘profiling and discrimination’.
His flight from Gatwick to Lanzarote, in the Canary Islands, on May 18 went smoothly but he ran into problems when he tried to return home in north west London on May 22.
He said he was told ‘this is your language’ when he asked for a form in English.
Dinesh ended up using Google Translate to complete the test and he managed to make his flight but said it was ‘an awful experience’.
Some were not as lucky, including Catherine Bronze, 49, and her 11-year-old son Kolby who were not allowed to to get onto their flight to go back to their home in Essex.
When Catherine got to the Ryanair check-in desk at West Knock Airport in Ireland on May 22, she was handed the same Afrikaans test.
She explained she did not speak Afrikaans, but was reportedly told to ‘try her best’.
When the English-speaking mum got some of the questions wrong, she and Kolby were denied boarding passes.
They were only able to get home without doing a test after Catherine’s husband, who has a British passport, came to fetch his family and travelled with them from Dublin Airport two days later.
Catherine, who is a ‘nervous traveller at the best of times’, said: ‘It was the first time I felt like I was being discriminated against for something out of my control – because it was immediately assumed that my passport was wrong.
Similarly, Petronia Reddy, 36, was told she could not fly from Stansted Airport to Dublin to spend the bank holiday weekend with her friend – because she got some ‘basic questions wrong’ in the test.
Petronia also told Ryanair staff she does not speak Afrikaans but claims she was told: ‘The test is only available in Afrikaans and if you can’t provide the answers, it proves you’re not South African.’
She tried her best but could not understand all the questions and was barred from boarding the plane on Wednesday.
Petronia stood her ground and eventually convinced a supervisor to let her onto the next scheduled flight, as she had missed her original flight by this point.
But Petronia stressed the issue is not just about the inconvenience, but the ‘trauma Afrikaans brings up for a lot of South Africans’ for its role in the country’s racist apartheid history.
One of the biggest anti-apartheid catalysts was the Soweto Uprising on June 16 in 1974 – when young people protested against, among other things, a new rule forcing students of colour to take classes and exams in Afrikaans.
Petronia said: ‘I was getting really emotional because of our history. As a brown person, these things happen more often than they should.’
Petronia’s Xhosa-speaking friend, who does not want to be named, said she was ‘horrified and shaken as a black woman from South Africa’ when she was forced to do Ryanair’s Afrikaans test.
Both British and Irish governments confirmed to Metro.co.uk that the test is not part of either of their border policies.
Ireland’s department of foreign affairs said: ‘South African citizens are not required to do a test in Afrikaans before boarding a flight to or from Ireland.’
Ryanair said in a statement: ‘Due to the high prevalence of fraudulent South African passports, we require passengers travelling to the UK to fill out a simple questionnaire issued in Afrikaans.
‘If they are unable to complete this questionnaire, they will be refused travel and issued with a full refund.’
The airline has not responded to any other questions.
Do you think that if I proved to the gate agent that I could recite the lyrics to I've Never Met a Nice South African from memory, that they'd let me on the plane?!
This is beyond stupid, even judged by Ryanair's standards. Thanks to having dated a South African lady in the distant past, I picked up a bit of the language. I was able to understand all of the questions, and answer all but three correctly (the international dialing code, the President - I thought it was still Jacob Zuma - and the name of the highest mountain; I bet there are many legitimate citizens of many countries who could not answer that question in respect of their own nation correctly). So even if I did have a phony passport, I'd probably have gotten through. And of course the language is so similar to Dutch that anyone who is even tourist level proficient in that language would likely have little difficulty with this test, too.
Afrikaans is a pretty funny language. It's essentially a very old version of Dutch, with some random English thrown in here and there. It should be pretty well understandable for anybody that can read Dutch. Understanding the spoken form may be more of a challenge though.
Getting back to the idea of this entire test itself... Heck, who comes up with something like this? Making your chances of immigration into a certain country dependent on how you score at the latest local Pub Quiz surely sounds "legit"...
The reason they're employing such half-assed solutions is probably, because they'll get fined for every passenger they deliver to port that turns out to be illegal or lacking the proper papers. Otherwise, why should they bother about a problem that should be an immigrations and/or customs issue?
It seems that South Africa started to implement biometric passports more than 12 years ago. Given the fact that most passports expire within either 5 or 10 years and many countries require biometric passports for express entry or express-visa procedures, most traveling with an SA passport will probably have an NFC chip in there, which will be VERY HARD to fake... I guess Ryanair could solve their problems by investing a bit of money into biometric passport readers at the gate. Maybe this, or they should really turn this into an in-flight Pub Quiz, with LOTS of Irish beer...
Yes; governments essentially try to pass the costs of immigration enforcement on to airlines, by, as you say, fining them up the wazoo if they land someone who is not legally eligible to enter, and requiring the airline to fly them out again. It's just possible that Ryanair came up with this stunt as a form of protest against that, but I suspect it's just Ryanair being Ryanair.
As for the biometric angle, if the system is corrupt enough that an official can be paid off to program a legitimate chipped passport with phony details, then that solves that problem. Although several generations earlier and long before biometric chips existed, that is the premise of Frederick Forsyth's novel The Odessa File: a low-level processing official in a passport-issuing center identified a weak spot in the bureaucratic process and was able to steal genuine, but blank passports, which were then used to help ex-Nazi war criminals escape from Germany.
And as for Ryanair, I suppose a linguistically skilled Afrikaaner could answer the questionnaire in Irish Gaelic, and ask the gate agent to verify that (s)he understood the answers, just to prove that Ryanair really is an Irish airline!
It's my understanding that Afrikaans is a language spoken mostly by white South Africans. So maybe this is a back-door way of saying that we don't want any of those pesky black people riding on our planes?
Ryanair's MO is to apply the principle that no publicity is bad publicity. The airline's high profile CEO, Michael O'Leary, has in the past made public comments advocating charging passengers extra to use the restroom on planes, boasting that they have the smallest legally permissible seat pitch, and that he doesn't hire "aerosexuals" as pilots.
If I had to guess, I would agree with Marcel. Relatives who work in civil aviation tell me that airlines sorely resent being made responsible for checking that passengers are legally entitled to enter the country they're flying to, and subjected to heavy fines if they get it wrong: the airline industry's position is that this is a job for national governments, not them. So a publicity stunt designed to draw attention to this is just the sort of thing that Ryanair would do, and mixing in a little of the race card with that (as you point out, the Afrikaans language is strongly associated with Apartheid in popular culture; in some ways unfairly) would simply make it that much more effective, from Ryanair's perspective.
Ryanair's MO is to apply the principle that no publicity is bad publicity. The airline's high profile CEO, Michael O'Leary, has in the past made public comments advocating charging passengers extra to use the restroom on planes, boasting that they have the smallest legally permissible seat pitch, and that he doesn't hire "aerosexuals" as pilots.
My last flight ever on an Ryanair plane took place more than 10 years ago. I saw some piece that looked like a rubber band sticking out between the aileron and the outer flaps, something that most definitely isn't supposed to be there during flight. I told a stewardess and she bluntly told me, that if there would've been anything wrong with the plane, the captain would surely not take off with it and I should not not dare to start a panic. Keep in mind that this was a spot that was possibly not visible from the cockpit and probably also not from below, so it may easily have overlooked during one of those breakneck go-arounds Ryanair usually stages.
I guess, out of principle, I should've left the plane right there, but the urge to get home, after countless of delays was bigger, so I kept silent... We made our way to the runway and the piece actually fell-off during take-off, probably landing on the tarmac.
It was clear to me that the left aileron was stuck and just after take-off the captain called that we would be returning to the airport, due to a "minor control problem" with the aircraft. After we got back on the ground, I went back to that same stewardess. I only looked her in the eyes, left the goddamn plane, bought a ticket for another flight on an other airplane and have since never ever flown with Ryanair and don't plan on flying with them ever again.
In the end, Ryanair is mostly false-advertising anyway. They try to hide additional costs wherever they can and try to upsell you overpriced stuff whenever possible. They mislabel their destinations, like "Barcelona" (which is in Girona) or "Brussels South" (which is in Charleroi), but the truth is, you're often more than 2 hours away from the actual center of that city.
Like I indicated, I haven't flown with them for ages, but most of their staff usually looked tired, overworked and was generally just rude. For someone like me, with quite some long legs, their seats always have been a horror show, with literally NO place to put them. And dare to try to sleep on their flights, because you'll be awoken regularly by advertizements for their lottery blaring through the speakers at maximum volume. Yeah, there is cattle that gets a better experience during transport than you get with Ryanair...
My last Ryanair experience was in 2001, visiting Trier, for which, ironically "Frankfurt Hahn" airport (as Ryanair called it) was ideally situated (much less so if one is actually trying to get to Frankfurt, which is about two hours' bus ride away). It was ridiculously cheap, including the car rental at Hahn for the short drive into Trier. I guess I must have gotten lucky, because both flights were on time, nothing got caught in any control surfaces, and I'm still here to tell the tale (but not in the form of whining to the Daily Mail that I had to sleep on the floor of an airport terminal for three nights). The only real reason I didn't fly with them between then and when I emigrated is that Ryanair didn't go anywhere I needed to go when I needed to go there.
I'm with you on the height issue, being 199cm tall and with disproportionately long legs. For flights of 1-2 hours or less I can put up with Ryanair/Southwest seat pitches, but longer than that I have to bite the bullet and pay extra for an exit row seat, or else I'm aching all over for days afterwards.
Originally posted by Mark Gulbrandsen
Not sure what this was all about... There must be more to the story...
The more I'd like to know is what the "allegedly obscene film" was. Given the "lady projectionist" description, I'm guessing that this report is from the 1960s at the absolute latest, and likely earlier.
Tweet
Comment