Y2K Spoof Flick Goes Awry

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,32746,00.html

Y2K Spoof Flick Goes Awry

by Craig Bicknell

11:00 a.m. 24.Nov.1999 PST

Mike Zieper wanted to tap into current passions with his video art. To do it, he made a grainy, gray tape in which a faceless narrator prepares his soldiers to unleash a government-sponsored riot in Times Square at midnight 2000.

The plan: to create chaos so federal troops have an excuse to move in.

Weird thing was, after Zieper posted the video clip on his Web site, the troops did move in.

"This FBI agent called," said Zieper. "He said, 'There are a lot of people planning to vacation in New York this year, a lot of them are coming to your site and they're getting scared. I want to talk to you about how we can stop people from coming to this site.'"

Zieper called a lawyer and didn't pull the site. So both the FBI and the US Attorney's Office went upstream to Zieper's Web hosting company, BECamation in Michigan, and asked that Zieper's site be pulled. There was no threat of legal action, but BECamation president Mark Wieger complied.

"We didn't want to take any chances with our business, so we pulled it down," Wieger said.

In doing so, Wieger pulled a lever that let loose a virtual riot among free-speech advocates. After the Village Voice published a piece about the incident, online message boards erupted in protest. Now the American Civil Liberties Union is considering a lawsuit on Zieper's behalf.

"We think, certainly, that it's very improper for the FBI to be harassing an Internet hosting company to take down content that may be disturbing, but is certainly protected by the First Amendment," said ACLU staff attorney Ann Beeson.

The FBI did not respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, the video itself has been copied and posted on numerous mirror sites.

It's a hit beyond anything Zieper could have anticipated. Reality has woven a fresh, relevant, scene into the video's fiction and given it a nice buzz. A grand slam for a struggling artist.

"If this gets people to look at all this stuff seriously, that's fantastic. That's exactly what I wanted to do," Zieper said.

That doesn't mean he's not upset, particularly on behalf of Mark Wieger, who's been besieged by vicious flame emails decrying his decision to pull Zieper's site.

"They're saying, 'Why didn't you stand up for the Constitution?'" Zieper said. "I think that's very easy to say from afar, but when the knock comes for you it's a terrifying experience. They tried to infer that he best get out of the way."

That has Zieper wondering what else the FBI is up to. "I hope this is just an aberration," he said. "I hope that they review the constitution back at the FBI and don't try to do anything like this again."

-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@Tminus37&counting.down), November 24, 1999

Answers

"I hope this is just an aberration," he said. "I hope that they review the constitution back at the FBI and don't try to do anything like this again."

hahahahaha yeah right!

-- C. Hill (pinionsmachine@hotmail.com), November 24, 1999.


:"I hope this is just an aberration," he said. "I hope that they review the constitution back at the FBI and don't try to do anything like this again."

They'll review it, decide it's not politically correct, declare it subversive literature, and most certainly will try this again. Especially since no one stood up to them this time.

-- Powder (powder@keg.com), November 24, 1999.


Interesting dilemma; do you allow someone the freedom to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, or do you disallow that freedom for the greater good of the general population? We'll be splitting hairs trying to weigh these things out as more and more people push the envelope of acceptable behavior. When do you step in and tell someone, "You can't do that because of its potential harm to others,"? Where do you draw the line of free speech? I think it's the timing of the video that has motivated the FBI,...if the video's dramatization didn't portend to exacerbate an already volatile subject, I doubt they would waste the energy to "persecute" the "artist" responsible for the video. Since he refused to see the sense of retiring the potentially inflammatory video, the guys in the suits had to go over his head and reason with the ISP owner, who in all seriousness, had the good sense to cooperate. It's not always government persecution; sometimes its people's stiff-necked indifference to common sense that requires some strong arming. What would you say if the police told you that the drunken neighbor threatening you with bodily harm was just exercising his rights? I daresay you might feel a little uncomfortable with a belligerent, bellicose, and unrestrained threat like that given free rein to harass and threaten you. In a similar fashion, the FBI guys are simply trying to rein in a loose cannon; one who either doesn't understand the serious potential for provoking irrational fear that his "production" could elicit, or one who doesn't care. I hate obtrusive government intervention into private matters as much as any Costitutional adherent, but folks, please! The FBI isn't harassing this poor soul for their malicious enjoyment; they are doing their job to minimize a public threat as best as they can. If you don't see it that way, speak your piece, and let us reason together as civilized men (and women) should.

-- Jay Urban (Jayho99@aol.com), November 24, 1999.

It's already gone. All of it. We just have'ta have the wake and funeral now.

Kook

-- Y2Kook (Y2Kook@usa.net), November 24, 1999.


The fire in the theater analogy is flawed. The FBI never accused the artist of inciting riots or endangering lives, only of potentially harming tourism. That charge could apply to any journalist writing about crime in the city and doesn't meet the standard for restricting his speech.

-- rob minor (rbminor@hotmail.com), November 24, 1999.


I think the fire in the theater position holds water in this situation. The FBI knows it has enough problems without needlessly ticking off the American citizenry over some silly and trivial civil rights argument. What would you have them do...allow everyone to express themselves however they want to without any thought to how their behavior might affect others harmfully? Sorry, I don't buy it. If the video's impact on a susceptible public anxious for a "trigger" factor did just that, and provoked bedlam or rioting, I'm sure the affected citizens would hold the FBI liable for negligence, in knowing of a dangerous situation, and not acting. That's my read on it, and thank you for your comments.

-- Jay Urban (Jayho99@aol.com), November 24, 1999.

Actually, i don't think the fire position or the drunken neighbor theroy is all that great. It is illeagl to yell fire in a theater, but you have to yell it first to be guilty, your drunken neighbor has to threaten or assult you first before the police can do anything. They simply can't do it because they "think" it might happen (at least for now). What is next the "thought police". Our goverment has assured all that everthing is going to be OK on rollover, surely one little website is going to insight a riot in New York on New Years. They simply used intimidation and fear to get the desired results. This is not they way it is suppose to be in the USA, if there was a leagl problem, it should have gone through the courts, not the FBI, they should be enforceing the law, not prosecuting, judging and and sentencing at will.

-- oboy (oboy @oboy.cxom), November 24, 1999.

That's tantamount to saying that you don't move out from in front of a vehicle headed straight for you, you just sue the driver afterwards, if you survive. Sheesh, folks, use some reasoning, please!

-- Jay Urban (jayho99@aol.com), November 24, 1999.

But what you are suggesting is that the police arrest the driver before he/she even get into the car, because he/she might run some poor slob down.

I am sure as a society we can come up with all kinds of great rules and laws to protect us from every imangable event. To protect us from ourselves and each other, but at what point do we say enough is enough and take some personal responsability for our own actions. I personally don't want or need you or some goverment official to make my decisions for me, I am a big boy so I will make my own thank you, let me decide if this crappy little film is bad or good. I thought that was what being an American Citizen was all about, the right to choose for myself.

-- oboy (oboy@oboy.cxom), November 24, 1999.


This is an Item I read last nite on sighting's site--probably a contributing factor in why it was pulled.

http://www.sightings.com/ufo5/rounds.htm

-- mchenry (mchenry@siedata.com), November 24, 1999.



Hmm, Jay Urban weighs in here, Jay Urban goes and does likewise at sightings.com... strange time of year for Urban Renewal, eh? [g]

Jay, you scare the livin' crap outta me!

By your brand of logic, if the FBI decides they don't like what you say in a book you wrote, they should be able to march into the publisher's offices, and do what amounts to a protection racket shakedown. "Youse wouldn't want nothin' BAD to happen to yas, would ya?" under *color* of law.

Or perhaps you're of the mind that they should be empowered to issue something like a "D Notice"?

Please, this is the USA. We do things differently here. At least we're *supposed* to.

If you break a law, and the selective-enforcment folks decide you shouldn't be allowed to do so, they should *prosecute* you, NOT strongarm you into submission to their whims.

I have a hard time accepting that you *really* believe the BS you're foisting on us. Really.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 25, 1999.


D'oh. Make that:

"Hmm, Jay Urban weighs in here, Mark Urban goes and does likewise at sightings.com..."

Coffee deficiency, operator halted.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 25, 1999.


Does anyone else have a sense that maybe this little future film maker hit a nerve?

Even for the FBI, this knee-jerk response is a bit extreme.. constitutional issues were given the toilet paper routine here folks, in case anyone missed the point.

The video was an obvious "Blair Witch" genre rip-off... so why the paranoia?

Methinks an arrow shot in the dark hit something...

-- C (c@c.com), November 26, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ