[xnull2guest]

> Full stop, no it isn't.

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.

[xenophonf]

  It was my understanding that 18
  U.S. Code § 871 included depictions
  enticing or encouraging such acts.

Not according to Brandenburg v. Ohio, which states:

  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.

The key words there are "incite" and "imminent lawless action". But don't just take my word for it. You can read the decision for yourself here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

[seanmcdirmid]

Go ahead! I'm in the USA, where libel isn't illegal and is difficult to show even in civil cases (unlike say the UK). But what you just said was horribly unfactual, so there isn't much to worry about (you have to show what you said was actually true in any case). I mean, if you tell your attorney, I'm sure he will have a good laugh at you (after he takes your money of course!).

Obviously you are trolling.

[grzm]

It was my understanding that 18 U.S. Code § 871 included depictions enticing or encouraging such acts.

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.

[xnull2guest]

This is my understanding as well. But we're going to need to come back later with some input from case law.

[roywiggins]

Death of a President was screened in the US. It depicts a fictional assassination of the then-sitting US President. There wasn't even a whiff of illegality around it, even if the big chains refused to screen it, it wasn't for fear of prosecution.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_President_%282006...

[xnull2guest]

Wasn't that a British film?

I'm talking about American law where American law applies.

[grzm]

From the Wikipedia article:

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.

[seanmcdirmid]

It was released in America, so it doesn't matter. America law applies (and the first amendment, unlike the free speech garauntee in the Chinese constitution, ours actually means something).