ACLU V. ATLASIA

[DieselDogg]

[quote ACLU v. Atlasia

Comes now, DieselDogg, chief counsel for Actors and Cinema Lovers United (ACLU), asking that the Supreme Court grant a writ of certiorari to hear the following case against the government of Atlasia.

In August of this year, the government of Atlasia passed the Fostering Atlasian Cinema Act (the full text of which can be found at the link attached hereto as Exhibit A). This act violates the constitutional rights of many of the actors and movie studios that are members of the ACLU, specifically freedom of speech (Art. 1, Sec. 2 of the Atlasian Constitution), equal protection of law (Art. 1, Sec. 1 of the Atlasian Constitution), and due process of law (Art. 1, Sec. 5 of the Atlasian Constitution). Accordingly, we seek the Court to strike down this unconstitutional law.

Claim 1: Freedom of speech

Of specific importance to this claim is Section 3 of that act, which is as follows:

Section 3: Ethical Filmmaking and Cultural Authenticity

3.1 Ethical Casting and Representation:

a) Encourage casting practices that prioritize the authentic representation of characters, cultures, and experiences.

b) Require that non-Atlasian settings and foreign cultures be portrayed by actors, experts, and crewmembers from those respective backgrounds, ensuring cultural context and accuracy.

3.2 Filming in Foreign Languages:

a) Encourage filmmakers to produce films in the language spoken in the setting of the story.

b) Provide incentives and resources for filmmakers to hire linguists and cultural consultants to ensure linguistic and cultural authenticity.

This section unconstitutionally violates the free speech rights of actors by seemingly prohibiting movies that cast Atlasian actors as fictional characters who are scripted with foreign backgrounds that do not correlate with the background of the actors. That is blatant censorship of free speech. Actors have freedom of speech, including the freedom to speak on camera during a performance while making a movie in which they are acting as someone else. This bill would make classics like Ben Hur, Spartacus, the Passion of the Christ, and Gangs of New York illegal if made today, as each feature domestic actors acting as characters with foreign backgrounds.

Preferences and thus implied discrimination is also conditioned on the language used in the film. Since this censorship law only applies to films about foreign backgrounds but not domestic backgrounds, as well as films featuring foreign languages as opposed to English, this is textbook content discrimination and strict scrutiny applies. See Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015). This law fails strict scrutiny, since ensuring accurate cultural context in movies is not a compelling state interest and this law is not the least restrictive means of achieving this end.


Claim 2: Equal Protection

Of specific importance to this claim is Section 3 of that act, which is again as follows:

Section 3: Ethical Filmmaking and Cultural Authenticity

3.1 Ethical Casting and Representation:

a) Encourage casting practices that prioritize the authentic representation of characters, cultures, and experiences.

b) Require that non-Atlasian settings and foreign cultures be portrayed by actors, experts, and crewmembers from those respective backgrounds, ensuring cultural context and accuracy.

3.2 Filming in Foreign Languages:

a) Encourage filmmakers to produce films in the language spoken in the setting of the story.

b) Provide incentives and resources for filmmakers to hire linguists and cultural consultants to ensure linguistic and cultural authenticity.

This unconstitutionally violates the equal protection of Atlasian actors as a law is being applied against them but is not similarly applied to foreign actors. Ditto for foreign language speakers vs English speakers. This is a textbook equal protection violation because the sole determining factor of whether the restriction applies is the nationality, ethnicity, or language of the actor or movie speech. The same strict scrutiny analysis applies, and has not been met by Atlasia.


Claim 3: Due Process

Finally, the entire bill violates the due process rights of studios, directors, actors, and others involved in film making by being written unconstitutionally vague such that persons cannot reasonably be able to conform their behavior to the law to avoid criminal penalties. The Constitution requires that any law be sufficiently clear and not vague so that persons can reasonably be able to conform their behavior to the law to avoid criminal penalties. See Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926).

The entire law at issue however violates this Constitutional principle. For starters, there are only two (2) complete sentences in the entire law, and neither of those perform any clear operative exercise of power. Every subsection begins with an inoperative collection of words that does not form a complete sentence or clear thought, let alone a clear exercise of legislative power. The law is at best a glorified outline that was never reduced into actual, legal text. For example, lets look at Subsection 2.1:

a) Establish guidelines for standard contracts that outline the rights, compensation, and working conditions of actors, screenwriters, and crewmembers.

b) Require production companies to provide timely and fair payment for services rendered.

c) Enforce penalties for non-compliance with contractual obligations, including fines, mandatory restitution of unpaid wages, and suspension or revocation of production licenses.

Notice, none of these are complete sentences or complete thoughts. I haven't clipped anything out, this is the direct text of the law. In (a) it is not established who will "establish" the vague guidelines for contracts or who will be subject to the "guidelines". In (b) it is not established who will "require" production companies to abide by the clause or what "timely and fair payment" means in this context/ who decides what is timely and fair. In (c) it is not established who will "enforce" purported penalties, the scope of potential "fines", or what a "production license" even is. None of these clauses are complete sentences or complete thoughts. None of them are clear exercises of legislative power. None of them are sufficiently fleshed out and clear to allow persons to comply with them. All of them give unfettered discretion to law enforcement to decide when to enforce or not enforce. This is a textbook violation of Constitutional due process protections against vague laws. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).

And this is only a single subsection. Every single clause in this law is similarly written in this poor, grammatically incorrect, vague, indecipherable, arbitrary manner. Every one. It is impossible for anyone to read this law and know what they need to do to avoid violating the law. I am willing to go through each subsection to show this. Thus, the entire law is unconstitutionally vague, unenforceable, and resultingly void.


Conclusion

The Fostering Atlasian Cinema Act is indisputedly unconstitutional by violating the free speech, equal protection, and due process rights of ACLU members. It censors speech on the basis of content without satisfying strict scrutiny, it discriminates on the basis of alienage, ethnicity, and language, and it is so poorly written that the entire law is void for vagueness as without complete sentences Atlasian citizens cannot reasonably be expected to conform to its requirements and arbitrary discretion is given to the government in deciding against whom it is to be enforced.

I do not know why such an unconstitutional law was passed. My guess is a sponsor illegally had ChatGPT spit out a bunch of words and was too lazy to format them into actual, operative sentences, then the floor leader shamefully pushed through the bill without adequate debate for political reasons, and then a bunch of lazy Senators voted for it without bothering to read it. Regardless of the reasons, the law is undeniably unconstitutional as adopted, and must be struck down. I thus ask for certiorari so that this blight on the nation can be excised. Thank you.

- DieselDogg, ACLU Counsel

Exhibit A:

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=558713.msg9157709#msg9157709

[/quote]

[DieselDogg]

Honorable justices,

The Fostering Atlasian Cinema [Act] violates the constitutional rights of ACLU members and must be struck down as unconstitutional. Of particular relevance is Section 3.1(b) which reads:

b) Require that non-Atlasian settings and foreign cultures be portrayed by actors, experts, and crewmembers from those respective backgrounds, ensuring cultural context and accuracy. [Sic]

In addition to what was argued in my Petition for Cert, I offer the following argument:

Freedom of Speech

The Atlasian Bill of Rights includes freedom of speech. This Court has previously held that when interpreting a clause in the Atlasian Constitution that originated from the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court precedent is presumptively binding, absent subsequent changes made in game. See PoliticsFan v. South (2020).

It is well established that the constitutionally-protected right to engage in free speech includes speech made as part of a non-obscene artistic performance, so therefore actors have a right to perform even if they are portraying a fictional character with different scripted life experiences than the actor. As confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court: "An actor, like everyone else in our country, enjoys a constitutional right to freedom of speech ..." Schacht v. U.S., 398 U.S. 58 (1970). This is no less the case when the performance is recorded and reduced to film. As confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court: "Expression by means of motion pictures is included within the free speech and free press guaranty of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It cannot be doubted that motion pictures are a significant medium for the communication of ideas. Their importance as an organ of public opinion is not lessened by the fact that they are designed to entertain as well as to inform." Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952). This right extends not just to actors but to persons involved in making the film as well. As confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court: "That the production, distribution and exhibition of motion pictures is a large-scale business conducted for private profit does not prevent motion pictures from being a form of expression whose liberty is safeguarded by the First Amendment." Id. It is thus beyond dispute that the federal law at issue here restricts constitutionally-protected speech.

Since the law restricts films about "non-Atlasian settings and foreign cultures" but not films about Atlasian settings or domestic cultures, the law has engaged in content discrimination. According to the U.S. Supreme Court: "A content-based law or regulation discriminates against speech based on the substance of what it communicates." Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015). A law that discriminates against speech based on content is facially unconstitutional unless the law survives strict scrutiny analysis. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, "A law that is content-based on its face is subject to strict scrutiny regardless of benign motive, content-neutral justification, or lack of animus toward the ideas contained." Id. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, strict scrutiny requires "... a showing that the regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and is narrowly drawn to achieve that end." Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U. S. 105, (1991). According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a law is only narrowly drawn if it is the "... least restrictive means possible of achieving ... the compelling state interest." McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (2014).

The law fails strict scrutiny

The law at question in this case fails strict scrutiny because the purpose of the law is not a compelling state interest and is not the least restrictive means of achieving its purpose. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, "A government interest is compelling if it is essential or necessary rather than a matter of choice, preference, or discretion." Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984). The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that protecting the public health and safety, when lives are at risk, as a compelling state interest, but never something as trivial as the law at issue in this case. There is no purpose statement in the Fostering Atlasian Cinema [Act], so we have to look at the text of the law to determine its purpose. Given that the law is largely unreadable due to the lack of sentences and shamefully poor grammar, determining a purpose from the crude text is not easy. Section 3.1(a) immediately preceding the racist ban on acting, reads:

Encourage casting practices that prioritize the authentic representation of characters, cultures, and experiences.[sic]

Presumably then the purpose of the law is the promotion of diversity in artistic performances. This absolutely is not a compelling state interest and thus the law fails strict scrutiny. Even assuming arguendo that there is a compelling state interest, this law is not the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. This law seeks to promote diversity by prohibiting persons from acting in or producing films about different cultures. Rather than censoring this speech however, the government could instead accomplish its goals by merely requiring a disclaimer about the actor's background in the credits, or by promoting information about the films, or by directly sponsoring the films it wants. It is painfully obvious that the law in question is not the least restrictive means of promotimg diverse films; therefore again this law fails strict scrutiny.

Conclusion

The Fostering Atlasian Cinema [Act] is unconstitutional because it violates freedom of speech by facially censoring private speech on the basis of content, and is not the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest. Thus, it is imperative that the Court grant the relief requested by ACLU in its Petition and strike down the law as unconstitutional.

This law is a disgrace. It is a testament to the incompetence of the Peace Party that would allow a blatantly unconstitutional law like this pass without a single thought. This is what happens when you let a non-native English speaker use robots to spam dumb bills that don't even contain complete sentences. This is what happens when you let opportunistic PPTs push through votes without adequate debate. This is what happens when you have party drones as Senators who rubber stamp whatever their team introduces. This is what happens when you have an absentee President who puts in minimal effort at best.

For the constitution and free speech to prevail, the Fostering Atlasian Cinema [Act] must fall.

Thank you.

- DieselDogg
Chief Counsel, ACLU