Last week, the Washington Post ran a front page story on the MPI film State of Control. The article says that while filming the documentary in Tibet–and even back home in the U.S.–the filmmakers have been under Chinese surveillance. Their computers have been hacked, spied-on, and even cleaned out.

Despite the Chinese government denying its involvement, State of Control filmmakers Christian Johnston and Darren Mann believe the evidence is too strong to indicate otherwise.

The Washington Post notes:

Once the filmmakers got to the Tibetan region, their laptop was hacked, its operating system wiped out and a related Web site in Los Angeles deluged with so much traffic that it crashed.

The cyberattacks on the team led by filmmakers Christian Johnston and Darren Mann started nearly five years ago and continued for so long that they delayed completion of the documentary about Tibet, “State of Control.”

The filmmakers are convinced that the Chinese government is behind the attacks, but the evidence is circumstantial. The Chinese government has a history of hacking into the computers of human rights activists. Some of the intrusions have been traced to computers in China. And Beijing routinely tries to quash dissent in Tibet and keep the grievances of the region’s ethnic minority from reaching the outside world.

As attention focuses on Chinese theft of business secrets, experts warn that another area deserving scrutiny is the Chinese authorities’ use of cyber-tactics to suppress free speech. Chinese cyberspies have been accused of hacking into the computers of Tibetan activists and human rights groups, as well as major U.S. financial institutions, law firms and news organizations, including The Washington Post.

“The Chinese military is involved in hacking for intimidation, absolutely,” said Greg Walton, an independent cybersecurity researcher in India who has documented surveillance of dissidents’ networks by the Chinese. “There’s an accepted body of evidence to show that the People’s Liberation Army are engaged in this activity.”

The experience of the U.S. filmmakers and their crew does not constitute the kind of large-scale cyberattack that prompts headlines or congressional hearings. But it does illustrate the persistence of cyber-harassment.

Johnston, 39, said he was troubled by the disruption of the film. “The disturbing part,” he said in an interview, “is watching China’s impunity to monitor and be intrusive, not only with our own little film project, but with human rights activists in America all the way up to major Western media.”

Read the full article here, and visit MovingPictureInstitute.org to watch the trailer and learn more about State of Control.

Teddy Turner admits that he has a hard time watching his father’s programming most of the time.

Listen below:

MPI fellows Bert Klein and Jennifer Cardon Klein

MPI fellows Bert Klein and Jennifer Cardon Klein are co-directors of Pups of Liberty, an award-winning short film about the Boston Tea Party that seeks to attract young children to the study of American history. With MPI support, the Kleins recently released a classroom-ready version of the film that includes teacher discussion guides, worksheets, and lesson plans. Thousands of teachers have already ordered Pups of Liberty, ensuring that it will reach millions of kids over the coming years. In addition, the Kleins are exploring ways to bring Pups to a wider audience through a 60-minute television special or even a feature film.

Jennifer’s studio experience includes animation work on such films as The Iron Giant, The Emperor’s New Groove, The Road to El Dorado, Where the Wild Things Are, and Curious George. She co-produced the award-winning short The Chestnut Tree, produced the award-winning feature-length documentary Candyman: The David Klein Story, and is working on another feature documentary about legendary puppeteer Bob Baker and his marionette theater. Bert has worked on such notable films as The Lion King, The Lord of the Rings, The Simpsons Movie, The Princess and the Frog, Winnie the Pooh, and Wreck-It Ralph. He has taught animation at the California Institute of the Arts and his work has been nominated for three prestigious Annie Awards for Best Short by ASIFA (Association Internationale du Film d’Animation) Hollywood.

————

You’ve had great success in your filmmaking career. How did you get your start?

We both attended an animation course where we made films each year. Every time we made a new film, we learned a new skill — animating, writing, the importance of clear communication. We really enjoy the short film format, so even after we both started working professionally as animators for major studios we continued to make films on our own.

What was it like transitioning from major studio work to independent films like Pups of Liberty?

In a major studio you are performing a specific job as part of a larger machine to make a movie. That can be a great experience. At Hollywood studios, we had the opportunity to be mentored by some of the best artists in the world, and the artistic level that they aspire to is amazingly high.

When we are making our own films, we can focus on messages and content that we feel is important and vital to what is going on in the world, whereas a studio has an agenda to make a certain product. In an independent film, we can say what we feel should be said and have fun with the art. Another aspect we enjoy is being able to do many different jobs — not only animating but directing, editing, painting backgrounds, and so on. As artists, it is very invigorating.

Where did you get the idea for Pups of Liberty?

We were living overseas and realizing that the freedoms we were accustomed to were not enjoyed worldwide. It sparked the idea to make a film that could explain to young kids what our liberties mean and how we came to have them. We want them to learn at an early age how special our national history is.

Continue Reading »

MPI’s Indoctrinate U premiered in 2007, and since then has been screened thousands of times at hundreds of college campuses across the country. Six years after its release, student groups are still requesting the film — and expressing how much the film’s message resonates with them.

Indoctrinate U takes a humorous look at the state of free speech and free thought on American campuses, revealing a national campus culture in which speech codes rule the day and First Amendment rights are not necessarily afforded to all.

In a recent article in the Daily Nebraskan, one graduate student talks about how this culture is not only well established, but increasingly getting worse:

“What is happening on our campuses in the name of progress and social engineering is the enemy of liberty and it’s also the enemy of American progress,” Alan Kors, the founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) said, in a documentary by Penn Jillette and Teller.

Unfortunately, and somewhat astonishingly, most institutions of higher education in the nation suffer from bureaucracy that limits self-expression, freedom of speech and ideas in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity.”

“These absurdities upon absurdities are teaching people that not just common sense, but any semblance of freedom of expression is to be sacrificed on this alter of ‘do not offend,’” Kors says.

For example, Harvard University, obviously regarded as one of the top institutions in the world, has multiple policies that seem acceptable on its face, but could violate the First Amendment on further inspection.

“Behavior evidently intended to dishonor such characteristics as race, gender, ethnic group, religious belief, or sexual orientation is contrary to the pursuit of inquiry and education,” reads Harvard’s “Free Speech Guidelines.” Similarly, its “Handbook for Students” continues: “The ability to express one’s views regarding religion is a significant freedom of speech that the College upholds. In some instances, this type of expression becomes an avenue for persuasion to affiliate with a particular religion. Discussion in this vein is prohibited when the educational and work environment of an individual or the community is jeopardized.”

For example, if someone whose moral beliefs conflicted with the concept of gay marriage, that person is permitted by the First Amendment to counter-protest a LGBT rally. This action would violate a policy similar to Harvard’s, however, and perpetrators could face repercussions from the university, all for simply expressing their opinions.

While undoubtedly well-intentioned, the guidelines Harvard sets forth are both unconstitutional and subjective under the First Amendment, which protects the unabridged freedom of speech. Similar policies plague 62 percent of the 409 campuses examined by FIRE, and many others’ were questionable.

Read more at DailyNebraksan.com.

Write to us at MPI and sign up for a FREE screening of Indoctrinate U on your campus! We’ll send you a DVD and some other materials to set up a great screening night for your student group. Email Stacie at Stacie[at]theMPI[dot]org.