banned version?

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

banned version?
Topic Started: Mar 31 2009, 12:02 AM (500 Views)
noblissinignorance	Mar 31 2009, 12:02 AM Post #1
Posts: 1 Group: Members Member #1,110 Joined: 03/30/09	Sup. New here and I have a question. well, according to some of my friends, the version of loose change we can all watch, has had certain compromising scenes removed from it, like irrefutable video evidence from ground zero. Apparently before it starts there is a disclaimer that states that by watching the video you are considered a terrorist and are subject to unwarranted surveillance and u could be sent to Guantanamo Bay. I searched the internet and cant find anything on it. Does this sound familiar to you guys?
Posts: 1 Group: Members Member #1,110 Joined: 03/30/09


JFK	Mar 31 2009, 12:48 AM Post #2
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	The screen you are referring to is at the beginning of the original version. The version which was "pulled" ( theres that damned word again ) was the second edition. The reason was that "excessive" amounts of the Naudet Bros. footage was used without permission violating "fair use", hence the recut. If you wish to view the "damning evidence" you have to buy the Naudet Bros. film. ( even if it is posted all over Youtube ) Edit to add - the most up to date version of that particular law which I have found reads as follows : ( Bolding is mine ) Quote: 18 U.S.C. § 2331. Definitions. (Terrorism) As used in this chapter— (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum; (2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; (3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property; (4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and (5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Amended: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-56, Title VIII, § 802(a), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 272, 376. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/foia/docs/afstats06.pdf Edited by JFK, Mar 31 2009, 01:48 AM.
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


hiphopopotamus	Mar 31 2009, 01:27 PM Post #3
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08	Since loose change doesn't coerce or intimidate, I don't think one is in danger of being tried for domestic terrorism by owning a copy. The only people in danger of prosecution would be the creators of the video for copyright infringement of that version. Did anyone try to obtain permission to use the footage? I wouldn't be surprised if they copyright holders allowed the footage to be used for free since loose change is publicly distributed for free.
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08


JFK	Mar 31 2009, 01:32 PM Post #4
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	hiphopopotamus Mar 31 2009, 01:27 PM Since loose change doesn't coerce or intimidate, I don't think one is in danger of being tried for domestic terrorism by owning a copy. The only people in danger of prosecution would be the creators of the video for copyright infringement of that version. Did anyone try to obtain permission to use the footage? I wouldn't be surprised if they copyright holders allowed the footage to be used for free since loose change is publicly distributed for free. The quote above is an amended version. I have had no success in finding the original wording of section 802 from a government website. To the best of my knowledge the Naudet Brothers are the only ones which complained. A lot of the footage used in the final cut was purchased.
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · 9/11 Truth and Loose Change in the Media · Next Topic »