A documentary look at the changing interpretations of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution - laws and court cases that have alternatively broadened and narrowed the amendment's protection of free speech and assembly. The film's thesis is that post-9/11 the government has seized unprecedented license to surveil, intimidate, arrest, and detain citizens and foreigners alike. The film also looks back to the Pentagon Papers' case and compares it to cases since 9/11 dealing with high school students' speech and protesters marching in New York City during the 2004 Republican convention. Comment comes from a range of scholars, pundits, and advocates. Written by
I saw this film a few years back on TV and was amazed how little attention this well made, thoughtful film has gotten.
Even in 2012 there is hardly any reviews on this film, maybe Liz Garbus had a bad distributor? This documentary discusses freedom of speech seen partly through Garbus father, attorney Martin Garbus.
They discuss among many things how the government in the USA have tried their best at silencing awkward opinions in post 9/11 America. But also what is the point of having freedom of speech? Is it needed?
Should racists, anti abortion activists, intelligent design people, etc have the same right? These and many other questions are raised in the film.
And it is not just one side of the political spectrum who get a chance to talk but Garbus interviews people with different political views. It is required viewing by anyone interested in freedom of speech or just interested in seeing a well made documentary.
This film should seen side by side with Fück (2005) directed by Steve Anderson. Noticed the odd spelling of Steve Andersons film? Yes, IMDb doesn't allow four letter words.
2 of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?