It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Controversial Princess Diana film Banned in US & UK

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I dunno what are they covering up?

Had little to no interest in this before but now lets see it!

"A controversial documentary delving into the details of Princess Diana's death will not see the light of day in the United States or Britain.

The film, "Unlawful Killing," directed by Keith Allen, claims the princess and her boyfriend, Dodi Al Fayed, were murdered in a plot involving her former father-in-law, Prince Philip. The movie was financed by Dodi Al Fayed's father, Mohamed Al Fayed, who has always believed the deaths were suspicious and not an accident."

news.yahoo.com...




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by BABYBULL24
 


It's like banning books so people won't read them. Do they seriously think people are going to say, "Oh, well then, if it's banned, I certainly don't want to see it"?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
They just guaranteed the film makers a huge successful profit by doing this. People will flock to it in droves to try and find out exactly what it is that other's don't want them to see or know about.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I suppose we will not be able to obtain a copy in Australia either.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
So how and WHY is it banned hear in the US? We are not the U.K (EU) how can they tell us what we can watch unless....

You put the pieces together
edit on 6-7-2012 by Infi8nity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Infi8nity
 


So how and WHY is it banned hear? We are not the U.K (EU) how can they tell us what we can watch unless.... You put the pieces together.

Rather than 'putting the pieces together' and coming up with some stupid, paranoid fantasy, you could just do a bit of googling, and find the film-maker's own account of why the film is banned in some jurisdictions.

Unlawful Killing – the film the British won't get to see by Keith Allen in The Guardian.


The internet is a global lavatory wall, a Rabelaisian mixture of truth, lies, insanity and humour. I felt its power and madness this week, when an excerpt from my new film, Unlawful Killing, was leaked on to YouTube and seized on by US conspiracy theorists, who immediately began claiming that the CIA had murdered Princess Diana...

You'll have to use your finger to read the rest.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
How can it be legal to censor or ban information? That is a violation of Trust of Office, your electred representatives are your employees and they are but mere mechanics, hired on trust to fix your car not damage it. You are sovereign, real flesh and blood people, and have inalienable rights and they are not hired to damage your freedom.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


The article you linked to was published last year and it says the film WILL be shown in the US... the article from the OP is from 10 hours ago and it says the film will no longer be shown in the US. So I fail to see the point you are trying to make...
edit on 6/7/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


How can it be legal to censor or ban information?

It isn't information. The film contains actionable claims against various people, and opens the makers to the threat of multiple lawsuits. Clearly the claims are not supported by any proof that will stand up in court.

That doesn't mean the claims are false. Read the Guardian article I posted, in which Keith Allen himself clearly explains the nature of the accusations being made in the film. You will see that it covers a very grey area – whether or not establishment figures spontaneously participated in a cover-up, without being asked, ordered or told to. There is no way you can prove a thing like that in court.

Nothing is being censored. It was the producers' own choice (made under legal advisement) not to run the film and risk being sued.


edit on 6/7/12 by Astyanax because: of legal issues.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 

The point is, quite simply, that Allen & co. fear or have been advised that suits could be brought against them in the American courts as well.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Infi8nity
 


So how and WHY is it banned hear? We are not the U.K (EU) how can they tell us what we can watch unless.... You put the pieces together.

Rather than 'putting the pieces together' and coming up with some stupid, paranoid fantasy, you could just do a bit of googling, and find the film-maker's own account of why the film is banned in some jurisdictions.

Unlawful Killing – the film the British won't get to see by Keith Allen in The Guardian.


The internet is a global lavatory wall, a Rabelaisian mixture of truth, lies, insanity and humour. I felt its power and madness this week, when an excerpt from my new film, Unlawful Killing, was leaked on to YouTube and seized on by US conspiracy theorists, who immediately began claiming that the CIA had murdered Princess Diana...

You'll have to use your finger to read the rest.


Prince Charles that you?

No really Yahoo posted it like 2 hours ago so don't follow this stuff but if the thing is being banned then that is just stupid cause now i want to see it!



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



The point is, quite simply, that Allen & co. fear or have been advised that suits could be brought against them in the American courts as well.
Ok well the article you linked to says nothing about that so I don't see how it was relevant. The article from the OP already explains that. But I see what you are saying, the film has not been "banned" in the US.


The film contains actionable claims against various people, and opens the makers to the threat of multiple lawsuits. Clearly the claims are not supported by any proof that will stand up in court.
I wonder if anyone on ATS has ever been sued for making claims? I'm serious... what is the difference between putting the claims on a message board and putting them in a film.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Ugh...spoken by a true liar, sorry lawyer...oops sorry insurance liar/no i meant lawyer.

Peace



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
I didn't know about the documentary until it was banned, causing this thread to be made. Now I know the title, author and that I'm not supposed to see it. Now I think I'll see it.

Great job US Government. Efficient as always. Glad our tax dollars are well spent.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
It's probably banned because it is too close to the truth. There are other documentaries on Diana's murder but they are not available in the public arena such as Christopher Everard's 2 Docs. One is called 'The Illuminati Vol 3 - Murdered By The Monarchy' and the other is called 'Lady Die'. Those Docs were nearly banned too. You can only obtain them from www.enigmatv.com

Banning documentaries like Unlawful Killing only makes people suspicious as to why and leads people to believe that the content may be true. I myself think it is true.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
IT does prove one thing...British monarchy rules USA and UK and that the monarchy are power brokers not figure heads.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysticPearl
Great job US Government. Efficient as always. Glad our tax dollars are well spent.

Its not banned, like the US government will show up at your door to arrest you if you get a copy of it. Its just being tied up, by civil legal matters, from being distributed. Our government had nothing whatsoever to do with this not being shown. The producers failed to acquire the proper insurance to cover the distributors from any resulting lawsuits generated by the film:

According to the Sun, the filmmakers could not secure insurance to cover liability for potential lawsuits over the film, which first aired at the Cannes Film Festival.


A spokesman for the film told the publication, "'Unlawful Killing' has been sold all around the world. But there was a specific form of insurance needed by the U.S. distributors to cover them for their French and U.K. offices. This proved impossible to secure. The film has been withdrawn in perpetuity."

So for example, if the royal family feels they are being defamed, or libeled, in the film, they can come back and sue the distributor for it.

In the UK, lawyers are blocking it, obviously because it includes accusations that they consider to be untrue, and legally considered to be defamation.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
IT does prove one thing...British monarchy rules USA and UK and that the monarchy are power brokers not figure heads.

Hardly...
All that it proves is that people with money have access to the best attorneys.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Diana was a timeless beauty and the epitome of elegant

RIP
edit on 6-7-2012 by HamrHeed because: rip



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   
I wonder, was Michael Moore ever sued for farenheit 9/11







 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join