Civil rights attorney featured in documentary

June 21, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

From IL reporter Rebecca Berfanger:

Some “First Impressions” readers might remember a blog post about a well attended Indianapolis screening of the film “William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe.” The documentary is about infamous civil rights attorney William Kuntsler, and was directed and produced by his daughters who grew up hearing about his cases in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s.

Indiana Lawyer covered it because Indianapolis was one of the first cities to show it, thanks to sponsorship from the Indianapolis International Film Festival, the Indianapolis law firm of Waples & Hanger, and the Indianapolis Museum of Art.

For those who missed the Feb. 18 showing at the IMA, which was followed by a lively discussion featuring Indianapolis civil rights attorneys, the film will be aired on PBS stations around the country starting Tuesday.

According to the websites of a few local affiliates, WTIU in Bloomington, which is also available on some Indianapolis satellite providers, WNIT in South Bend, and WFWA in Fort Wayne will air the documentary at 10 p.m. Tuesday. WNIN, available in southwest Indiana, will air the film at 9 p.m. Tuesday. All times are local.
It is not on the schedule for WFYI in Indianapolis, but it will also be available for viewing online Thursday through Sept. 21.

For those who don’t remember the blog or don’t recognize the name, they’ll at least recognize Kuntsler’s clients: revolutionaries who protested at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago; inmates who started a riot at Attica prison in New York in 1971 over inhumane living conditions; the American Indian Movement members who demonstrated at Wounded Knee, S.D., in 1973; a man convicted of and later exonerated for allegedly beating and raping a jogger in Central Park in 1989; a house cat named Tyrone who was held for crimes against humanity in a mock trial on TV in 1989; and those accused of bombing the World Trade Center in 1993.

Well, maybe Tyrone isn’t as well known or as controversial as the rest. But he still gets a mention in the film.
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • "Infamous?"
    I think it may be a bit strong to call William Kunstler. According to my old American Heritage dictionary from high school, "infamous" means "having an exceedingly bad reputation, notorious . . .3. convicted of a crime as treason or felony that brings infamy." I hope that is not what you intended about the colorful and controversial Mr. Kunstler.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT