It's one thing to disagree with somebody. It's another to censor them. That's the central problem with the United Kingdom's decision to condemn The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary by Martin Durkin arguing exactly what its title implies.
A response to the global warming awareness popularized by An Inconvenient Truth, Durkin's film was considered disingenuous from the perspective of British broadcast regulator Ofek, which ruled that Channel 4 violated the country's boundaries of impartiality when it broadcast the movie last year. Apparently, Durkin manipulated his subjects in order make them verify his questionable stance that global warming was a conspiracy.
Now, I find it hard to buy into any movie that puts its ugly one-sided argument right in the title, but there's something to be said for freedom of speech in this case. What's the U.K. doing with these nonsensical impartiality laws? Since when do documentaries have to remain objective and avoid agendas? Even your average PBS program takes a side. The ruling suggests a totalitarian mindset where art is subjected to a group think mentality, and that's scary. What if The Dark Knight were banned for condoning torture? Maybe that's an extreme comparison, so try this one: What does Ofcom think about Michael Moore?
1. 'Ofcom ruled that the documentary violated rules on impartiality, and made significant allegations against individuals without giving them a chance to respond.'
From your very own words: It's one thing to disagree with somebody. It's another to censor them.
The documentary made allegations and didn't give them the chance to respond or defend themselves.
Posted at 9:35PM on Jul 22nd 2008 by Electrix