杜冠宇: 柴玲大战《天安门》
wanghx
标 题: 柴玲大战《天安门》
发信站: 一路BBS (Tue May 5 11:42:23 2009), 本站(yilubbs.com)
杜冠宇 @ 2009-5-5 22:15 评论(8) 推荐值(33) 引用通告 分类: 转
太误事报上看到新闻一则：
The makers of an acclaimed documentary about the Tiananmen Square
demonstrations say that a lawsuit brought against them by one of the
leading student activists shows that she has abandoned the principle of
freedom of speech.
Chai Ling, once among the most-wanted people in China, is suing the
makers of Gate of Heavenly Peace, claiming that a website accompanying
the film infringes the trademark of her US-based software firm, Jenzabar
Inc. The company claims that Long Bow Group, a small independent
organisation based in Boston, is “motivated by ill-will, their sympathy
for officials in the Communist Government of China, and a desire to
discredit Chai, a former student leader in the pro-democracy movement”.
A court has already dismissed a defamation suit brought by Ms Chai. The
claim that the film-makers are infringing trademark by mentioning
Jenzabar on their website also looks unlikely to succeed, according to
court statements.
But the case has led to accusations that Ms Chai has forgotten the
ideals of freedom of speech. Carma Hinton, a founder of Long Bow, told
The Times that the former activist appeared to have set aside the ideals
of an open society for which she fought so courageously 20 years ago on
Tiananmen Square.
“It is sad that it has come at this moment, on the eve of the 20th
anniversary,” she said. Long Bow says that Jenzabar dismissed an offer
to settle out of court last month.
The film includes a controversial interview with Ms Chai a week before
the protests were crushed in which she says that only through bloodshed
can the students fulfil their aims. Speaking between tears, she tells
her interviewer: “The students kept asking, ‘What should we do next?
What can we accomplish?’ I feel so sad, because how can I tell them that
what we are actually hoping for is bloodshed, for the moment when the
Government has no choice but to brazenly butcher us?
“Only when the square is awash with blood will the people of China open
their eyes. Only then will they really be united. But how can I explain
this to my fellow students?”
The lawsuit against Long Bow makes no mention of this interview.
Since its release in 1995 the film has drawn the anger of both the
Chinese authorities and several student leaders and has become a
significant source of material on the movement.
However, the makers now fear that the aim of Ms Chai is to put Long Bow,
a non-profit organisation, out of business by bankrupting them through
legal costs.
Their appeal says: “We believe that in commemorating the events of 1989
20 years on, it is important to reflect also on the value of independent
thought, unfettered historical research, the collection and protection
of archival materials and the freedom of speech in our own environment.”
简而言之就是，柴玲把《天安门》的制作者给告了，原因是该片的网站“侵犯”了她公
司的商标。之前她还想告他们“诽谤”，结果法院没得儿她。
制片人卡玛女士表示：看来柴玲已经忘记了言论自由、开放社会等等20年前她曾为
之战斗的理想。
有趣的是，柴玲的诉状中完全没有提到《天安门》中她那段著名的“哭诉”。
终于恼羞成怒了。
哈哈哈。
失笑之余，发自内心地觉得，让一个人为她23岁时说过的话背一辈子的骂名，真是
不公平。
更何况，枪也不是她开的啊。
说句题外话就是，所有提起她便一脸不齿的中老年人，想想你自己23岁的时候脑子
里都是些什么吧。
我也不喜欢柴玲，但有件事一直让我不能理解：总有很多人，可以谈论凶手的丰功
伟绩，却不能原谅一个冲动的女大学生。
不就是因为那个凶手三十年前让你们上了大学吗？
难道柴玲的口水，比血还浓么。
我真就不明白了。
© “商业性”转载的话，麻烦您先打听一下我的工行卡号。除此随便转。
--
※ 来源:．一路BBS http://yilubbs.com [FROM: 67.99.0.0]
全文链接: http://www.yilubbs.com/HT/con_119_M.1241538143.A.htm
本文内容仅代表作者观点，与本站立场无关。
发信人: lihlii (立里), 信区: triangle
标 题: Re: 柴玲大战《天安门》
发信站: 一路BBS (Tue May 5 12:00:11 2009), 本站(yilubbs.com)
捏造事实的诽谤不是言论自由。
柴玲的诉讼是多年前拖到今天的。法院不支持她的诽谤指控，只是因为诽谤罪成立
很困难罢了，并不因此表示他们没有诽谤的事实。
并且一次审判不等于事实已决。
【 在 finssy 的大作中提到: 】
: 杜冠宇 @ 2009-5-5 22:15 评论(8) 推荐值(33) 引用通告 分类: 转
: 太误事报上看到新闻一则：
: The makers of an acclaimed documentary about the Tiananmen Square
demonstrations say that a lawsuit brought against them by one of the
leading student activists shows that she has abandoned the princi
: (以下引言省略...)
--
※ 来源:．一路BBS http://yilubbs.com [FROM: 82.210.0.0]
全文链接: http://www.yilubbs.com/HT/con_119_M.1241539211.A.htm
wanghx
我个人判断 Carma Hinton 就是在捏造谎言，故意诽谤。但是这一动机的证据非常微妙。封从德在《天安门之争》[9]一书中有具体的分析，
Carma 的《天安门》[10]明显故意裁剪资料来歪曲事实。
比如 Carma 的诽谤性解说词非常多，诸如此例：
[11] 5'01"这算是什么狗屁纪录片？依据何在？你狗奴才 Carma 凭什么说广场上的领导权争议，是为了“夺利”？而且港人赞助的金钱是用来平息“夺利争权”的？
金钱却平息不了广场上的夺利争权。
这是恶心到了极点。此类让人吃苍蝇的奴才狗屁充斥整部片子。反复毫无根据地说学生是中共思维方式，而实际上我听到 Carma 编写的这个虚假的“纪录片”，而本质上是谎言宣传片的台词，恰恰充斥了走狗奴才的思维方式和言辞，不断地被她恶心到难以卒读。
封从德说 Carma 很小心地裁剪了柴玲的话，比如把李录说要自焚的话安到柴玲头上。我重新看《天安门》证实这一点。但是，封从德说 Carma 甚至很仔细地把柴玲插入语中的“他说”都剪掉，我在片子中还是模糊能听到，也许柴玲说得很快，这个词没有剪掉，或者没有完全剪掉。
其他如封从德说柴玲有南下发动运动的计划，可以和影片后来柴玲决定又留下后，另一个男记者的提问可以交叉印证。那个记者的提问明显暗示他知道柴玲有南下计 划；但是柴玲在那种公开的访谈中也没有明说。
《天安门》这部片子事实上是说明柴玲并没有抛弃同学而逃走，因为采访过后她又出现在广场，并对记者说，自己准备休息一下，也就是说她已经脱离了实际领导 权。那 么至少从这以后的局势和她根本关系不大了。
幕后音：[11] 1'12"之所以许多人看过《天安门》之后得到柴玲逃走的印象，这就得益于制片者利用剪辑手法强化虚假的印象，颠倒素材的时间顺序的方式，达到对事实歪曲的目的。从 诽谤罪错除了动机之外的两个要素：行为实质，伤害性结果两个要素来看，都是满足的。事实上正因为《天安门》的歪曲，导致“柴玲让别人流血，自己逃走”的印 象极大地普及，依据这一错误事实对柴玲的侮辱攻击铺天盖地。
在民主女神像被人民簇拥着运往天安门广场的时候，一位记者在帐篷中采访了柴玲。
她又改变主意，要留下来了。[这种修辞法明显是贬义，极其恶心。似乎柴玲反反复复。一般正常的纪录片的事实自然描述说法应该是：她说自己辞职被劝说，于是 决定留下来]
柴：
我提出辞呈以后，听到各个方方面面的意见，他们认为我现在提出辞职不太合适[不是指责柴玲没有经过民主选举么？那么辞职也不行？:)]，理由是我已经在同 学中有相当的威信，而且在这个比较大家军心都不太稳定的时候，提出辞职可能会有些影响。考虑到这个方面呢，我想还是继续先留下，同时做适当的休息，并且等 待把新的一套体制建立起来。
记者：那么今后你是不是有想过要透过其他的方式来推动你们目前的运动呢？
柴：对，我有这样的考虑，因为我觉得工作的重点已经不在广场上，而应该在全国各地。本来我有点希望我想到全国各地去走一走，甚至到香港或者别的地方看一 看，究竟外面是怎么一个局面，亲自去看一看，然后决定在广场这个战役应该打多久，有可能起到是什么样的一个效果。
要证明恶意动机就比较难，影片《天安门》中有利用剪辑手法对柴玲大量的丑化，但是做得很巧妙，只是用镜头来说制作人自己的潜台词，制作人本人都从来不出现 于镜头中，努力造成客观中立的纪录片的假象。因此很难证明恶意动机。其实这部影片的的立场观点非常鲜明，就是戴晴等一派的那套谎言逻辑。
柴玲起诉的做法不明智，因为对谎言的驳斥，最好的方式还是揭露谎言，而不是诉讼所能够解决的。诉讼解决不了谎言本身的问题。我能想到的一种可能是，柴玲认 为自己已经决心退出民运，不再关心中共国的事情，因此只在乎用诉讼来确保公司的利权，而不再纠缠于民运的是非。她那个公司本身就有经济纠纷，而且在早期， 柴玲曾经以“学生领袖”的身份作为招牌招揽生意，这是招人诟病的一个因素。
参考：
- 柴玲起诉纪录片《天安门》的制作者 https://groups.google.com/group/lihlii/t/50de5cf6b9c57702
- Chai Ling and “The Gate of Heavenly Peace” lawsuit 柴玲起诉《天安门》制作者 https://groups.google.com/group/lihlii/t/82d5c6efd138f652
- 立里: 又看了《天安门》这部片子 https://groups.google.com/group/lihlii/t/68f55ffd65640f26
- Pauline Chen: Screening History: New Documentaries on the Tiananmen Events in China https://groups.google.com/group/lihlii/t/7121894a6092cfc7
- 马悲鸣: 共和天安门简史 https://groups.google.com/group/lihlii/t/a0fd697a352ce0d6
- Ian Buruma: Bad Elements: Chinese Rebels from Los Angeles to Beijing https://groups.google.com/group/lihlii/t/c77d3cf3177e5db7
- 柴铃在中关村创业的公司和近照 https://groups.google.com/group/lihlii/t/f2fe8571c3aec032
- 立里: 反正总有泼粪的方法 https://groups.google.com/group/lihlii/t/bc7208af63b6b0fe
- 推荐 封从德的书《天安门之争》 https://groups.google.com/group/lihlii/t/5a8adcc2c787de0f
- 纪录片天安門 六四事件 Documentary: Tiananmen Square http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0938BF24000377A1
- 纪录片天安門 六四事件 Tiananmen Square protests Part.14of20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97BlO-TZKew&feature=PlayList&p=0938BF24000377A1&index=13
wanghx
wanghx
至于共产党的思维方式，真正应该批评的，比如学生把泼污毛像的人出卖给中共。这是最大的污点，对于这一污点，我看过一些访谈里面，几乎所有的学生领袖都表 示了悔恨。而要对此负直接责任的连胜德，虽然表示愧疚，但是却说，再来一次的话，他还会那么做，认为那是防止阴谋破坏学生运动的必要，不给镇压以口实。
但是 Carma 这个片子里却连提都没提[1]。他们如果提的话，按照他们那套奴才逻辑，估计会认为泼污毛像更是不可容忍的“激进”“非理性”的罪状了。;)
[1] http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enNL277NL277&q=site%3Awww.tsquare.tv+%E9%B2%81%E5%BE%B7%E6%88%90&btnG=Search
诉讼文件 PDF 下载：http://www.wikifortio.com/835583/
解压缩密码：chailing
http://www.tsquare.tv/
Update, Spring 2009: 20 years after the events of June 4, 1989, one of the student movement's most prominent characters is attempting to censor this website. Click here to read about Chai Ling and her company's lawsuit against the Long Bow Group.
http://www.tsquare.tv/film/appeal-online.html
These web pages are the sole responsibility of the Long
Bow Group, and are in no way affiliated with or sponsored by Jenzabar,
Inc.
Related Pages: Summary of Lawsuit | About Chai Ling and Jenzabar, Inc.
For nearly two years the Long Bow Group tried to negotiate a settlement with Chai Ling and Jenzabar's lawyers. During this time, we were careful not to publicize the lawsuit. In April 2009, Jenzabar's lawyers declared that they had no interest in settling the case; given our limited resources, Long Bow has decided to appeal to the public for help.The following open letter asks for your support of the principles of free speech and academic freedom which we feel are being threatened by this lawsuit. Please know that signing this appeal letter carries no legal obligations, responsibilities, or commitments of any kind, nor does it mean that you necessarily agree with opinions expressed in either the Long Bow Group's films or its websites.
An Appeal
In Memoriam-
Tiananmen 1989, Free Speech & its Advocates
The Long Bow Group, Boston
(15 April 2009)
We commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the 1989 Protest Movement in China and recall with heavy hearts its brutal suppression. During that movement millions of people in China demonstrated in support of freedom of expression and media openness.
In making the documentary film The Gate of Heavenly Peace (天安门, 1995), and with the creation of its archival website (www.tsquare.tv), the Long Bow Group attempted to reflect the complex motives and stories behind the events of 1989 in an accessible format, and to provide specialists and the public with an ongoing research resource.
The film was attacked sight unseen both by the Chinese government and by several former student activists prior to its première at the New York Film Festival in October 1995. Subsequently, the Chinese authorities demanded it be banned from international film festivals, claiming that showing it would 'mislead the audience and hurt the feelings of 1.2 billion Chinese people.' Meanwhile, the student activists who opposed the film accused us of working for the Chinese government and denounced us as 'a pack of flies, a true disease of our era.' (他们是一群苍蝇, 是我们这个时代真正的疾病.)
Despite controversy The Gate of Heavenly Peace went on to win numerous prestigious film and academic awards in the United States and overseas. The film has continued to draw attention in the mass media, among researchers and educators and, together with the related website, it forms part of the international discussion of China's modern history. We believe that the kind of independent research and cinematic work we produce has only been possible through the support of academic colleagues, public funding agencies, private donations, and under the protective umbrella of free speech.
We are now deeply concerned because our very existence as an independent film and archive group is being threatened by a lawsuit launched by one of the people who, during the 1989 Protest Movement in Beijing, professed support for freedom of speech and democracy.
Chai Ling (Ling Chai), President of Jenzabar, Inc., and in 1989 Commander-in-Chief of the Defend Tiananmen Square Headquarters, and her husband, Robert Maginn, CEO of Jenzabar and former partner in Bain Capital, sued the Long Bow Group in 2007 in Boston, Massachusetts, for defamation and trademark infringement. [Click here to read a summary of the lawsuit.]
The lawsuit accused us of defamation because our website links to mainstream media news articles that reported critical information about Jenzabar, Chai Ling, and Robert Maginn. [Click here to visit the relevant pages on this site.] The trademark allegations are based on our use of the name 'Jenzabar' in the website. In the early stages of the litigation, the court threw out the defamation claims but not the trademark claims. The court recognized that 'Jenzabar seems unlikely to prevail on [the trademark claims],' but nevertheless decided to give Jenzabar a chance to try to prove its claims.
As a result, we are facing the accusation that Long Bow -- a non-profit documentary film producer -- is violating the commercial trademark of Jenzabar, a company that sells administrative and management software systems to large educational institutions. Although we clearly have no connection to Jenzabar and do not compete in any respect with Jenzabar, the lawsuit claims that our site diverts and confuses Jenzabar's potential customers. In fact, not one person has ever contacted the Long Bow Group about software or Jenzabar.
Over the years, mainstream US media publications (in particular, The Boston Globe, Forbes and The Chronicle of Higher Education) have produced and archived materials related to Jenzabar and its President, Chai Ling. The Long Bow website merely quotes from these materials, yet we are not aware of any action against these larger publications. In our opinion, this lawsuit is clearly intended to intimidate us into removing these news accounts and other information about Chai Ling and Jenzabar from our website. Indeed, Chai Ling's lawyers have demanded that we remove any reference to the company from our website. We believe that this material is of public interest and it is already in the public domain through other sources. Despite long months of discussion and conciliatory action on our part, undertaken in the hope of bringing an end to what we believe is malicious litigation, the case continues at great expense and risk to us.
The following excerpts from the Complaint filed against Long Bow in May 2007 demonstrate the seriousness of this lawsuit, as a threat to Long Bow and to the principles of political and expressive freedom that we hold so dearly:
--'Motivated by ill-will, their sympathy for officials in the Communist government of China, and a desire to discredit Chai, a former student leader in the pro-democracy movement in China's Tiananmen Square, Long Bow Group, Inc. ("Long Bow") has published false content concerning the Plaintiffs on the website it maintains (the "Site") and has collected a misleading sample of statements from outdated articles to circulate half-truths and falsehoods, and to create false impressions about Jenzabar, Chai, and Maginn. To ensure that this content is widely viewed and as damaging as possible, Long Bow makes unauthorized use of Jenzabar's protected trademarks to direct traffic to the Site. As a consequence, Jenzabar's clients and prospective clients are diverted to the Site and its defamatory content, causing reputational injury and loss of business opportunities.'
--'Upon information and belief, Long Bow's defamatory statements are motivated by malice toward Chai, as well as Long Bow's desire to discredit Chai and advance Long Bow's divergent political agenda.'
The Complaint also makes a demand:
--'For an accounting of the gains and profits realized by Long Bow from its aforesaid wrongful acts, and restitution and/or disgorgement to Jenzabar of Long Bow's ill-gotten gains.'
We believe this is a concerted attempt to undermine a nonprofit film and research organization that has for nearly thirty years presented audiences and educators throughout the world with work on Chinese life and history. Chai and Jenzabar appear determined to drain the limited resources of the Long Bow Group for not complying with their demands that we remove historical materials and data, as well as all references to Jenzabar, from our website. We are of the view that such demands and tactics have dire implications not only for us, but more widely for free speech and independent scholarship. We believe that in commemorating the events of 1989 twenty years on, it is important to reflect also on the value of independent thought, unfettered historical research, the collection and protection of archival materials and the freedom of speech in our own environment.
It is for this reason that we appeal to you--fellow researchers, colleagues in the media, educators and members of the interested public--to visit our website (www.tsquare.tv) to read the materials that have prompted this lawsuit and the legal filings from the case. We ask you to draw your own conclusions about the issues and freedoms at stake.
Please do not take this appeal as an attack on Jenzabar's business or the products and services it provides to its customers. We have no interest in prompting or participating in a boycott and no interest whatsoever in causing harm to Jenzabar's business or its employees. We seek only to preserve our rights, to stand up for the principle of free speech, and to defend ourselves and our work from this unjustified challenge.
If you would like to help, please sign this appeal as a modest gesture of your support for our stand. Please know that your signature carries no legal obligations, responsibilities, or commitments of any kind, nor does it mean that you necessarily agree with opinions expressed in either the Long Bow Group's films or its websites. Rather, it indicates that any instance of a corporation using its money and its power to stifle debate and suppress the historical record is cause for concern, in the academic community and beyond. If you are interested in lending your support, you may add yourself to the list below by emailing your name, title, and affiliation (if any) to: in...@longbow.org.
Written and Signed by
Carma Hinton, Professor of Visual Culture & Chinese Studies, George Mason University; Producer, Director, Long Bow Group
Richard Gordon, Producer, Director, President, Long Bow Group
Geremie R. Barmé, Professor of Chinese History, The Australian National University, Australian Research Council Federation Fellow, Fellow of the Australian Academy of Humanities; Producer, Director, Long Bow Group
Nora Chang, Producer, Director, Long Bow Group
Signatories
| Dr. Limin Bai Senior Lecturer in Chinese School of Languages and Cultures Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand C. D. Alison Bailey Director, Centre for Chinese Research Institute of Asian Research University of British Columbia, Canada Suzanne Wilson Barnett Professor Emerita, History University of Puget Sound, WA, USA Dr. Ruth Barraclough, Lecturer in Korean Studies College of Asia & the Pacific The Australian National University, Australia Jeffrey Berger, Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy Community College of Philadelphia, PA, USA Professor Harald Bockman Research Centre for Development and the Environment University of Oslo, Norway Dorothy V. Borei Professor of History Emerita Guilford College, NC, USA Yomi Braester, Professor of Comparative Literature University of Washington, WA, USA Professor Timothy Brook Principal, St. John's College University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada Daniel Bryant, Professor Emeritus Department of Pacific and Asian Studies University of Victoria Victoria BC, Canada Peter Button, Assistant Professor Department of East Asian Studies New York University, NY, USA Jean-Pierre Cabestan Professor and Head Department of Government and International Studies Faculty of Social Sciences Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong James Cahill, Professor Emeritus History of Art University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA William A. Callahan Professor of International Politics and Chinese Studies University of Manchester Co-Director of the British Inter-university China Centre Oxford, UK Dr. Duncan Campbell Senior Lecturer, China Centre, Faculty of Asian Studies College of Asia & the Pacific The Australian National University, Australia Thomas R. Carter Gaithersburg, MD, USA Dr. Anita Chan Research Fellow, Contemporary China Centre Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University, Australia Dr. Red Chan University of Warwick Coventry, UK Briankle G. Chang Director, Center for the Study of Communication Department of Communication, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA Michael G. Chang, Associate Professor Department of History and Art History George Mason University, VA, USA Lejen Chen, Organic Farmer Green Cow Farm Beijing, China Dr. Tina Chen Associate Professor of History University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada Vivien Chen New York City, NY, USA Professor Pei-kai Cheng Director, Chinese Civilisation Centre City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Xiaoqing Chi, artist New Hampshire, USA Eva Shan Chou, Associate Professor English Department City University of New York, Baruch College, NY, USA A.E. Clark Ragged Banner Press Father Jeremy Clarke S.J. Visiting Fellow The Australian National University, Australia Lisa Claypool Assistant Professor of Art History and Humanities Reed College, OR, USA Cathryn H. Clayton, Assistant Professor School of Pacific and Asian Studies University of Hawai'i, HI, USA Don J. Cohn Senior Editor, ArtAsiaPacific New York, NY, USA Lois Conner Photographer New York, NY, USA Dr. Susette Cook Lecturer in China Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of Technology, Sydney, Australia Bryan Corrigan Teacher, AP Economics Belmont Public Schools, Belmont, MA, USA Spencer R. Crew Clarence J. Robinson Professor of American, African American, and Public History George Mason University, VA, USA Dr. Francesca Dal Lago Leiden Institute for Area Studies Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands Dr. Gloria Davies Associate Professor and Convenor of Chinese Studies Monash University, Australia Michael E. Davies Principal, Appletree Hill Solicitors, Australia Deborah Davis, Professor of Sociology Yale University, CT, USA Robert DeCaroli, Associate Professor George Mason University, VA, USA Steven DeCaroli, Assistant Professor of Philosophy Goucher College, MD, USA Margaret H. Decker Computer System Specialist Belmont Public Schools, Belmont, MA, USA Dr. Kirk A. Denton Associate Professor, East Asian Languages and Literature The Ohio State University, OH, USA Françoise Derré, writer, translator Paris, France Neil J. Diamant Associate Professor of Asian Law and Society Dickinson College, PA, USA Zheng Ding, Professor of Physics Normandale Community College Bloomington, MN, USA Professor Stephanie Hemelryk Donald Professor of Chinese Media Studies University of Sydney, Australia Hua Dong Academic Specialist Coordinator, Chinese Language Program Northeastern University, MA, USA Darrell Dorrington Menzies Library The Australian National University, Australia Adam Driver, Ph.D. Candidate Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University, Australia Marie-Pierre Duhamel, film critic and translator Paris, France Emily Dunn, Ph.D. Candidate Asia Institute/History University of Melbourne, Australia Professor Michael Dutton Research Chair, Professor of Political Cultures Griffith University, Australia Professor Mark Elliott Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations Harvard University, MA, USA Benjamin A. Elman, Professor of East Asian Studies & History Princeton University, NJ, USA Sarah S. Elman, Head of Technical Services C.V. Starr East Asian Library Columbia University, NY, USA Bill Engst Marlboro, NJ, USA Karen Engst Pau, France Nicoals Engst-Matthews, student Pau, France Andrew Fair Law Offices of Andrew L. Fair New York, NY, USA Professor Judith Farquhar Max Palevsky Professor of Anthropology and of Social Sciences Chicago University, IL, USA Professor Mary Farquhar Executive member and former President, Chinese Studies Association of Australia Siyen Fei, Assistant Professor Department of History University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA Jesseca Ferguson Continuing Part Time Faculty School of the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, MA, USA Dr. Susan Fernsebner Assistant Professor of History and American Studies University of Mary Washington Fredericksburg, VA, USA Andy Friend Ellen V. Fuller Assistant Professor, East Asian Languages, Literatures and Cultures Studies in Women and Gender University of Virginia, VA, USA Peter L. Galison Joseph Pellegrino University Professor Department of Physics Harvard University, MA, USA Carrillo Gantner Ziyin Gantner Andrea Geyling Modern World History Instructor Milton Academy, MA, USA Christina Gilmartin Associate Professor of History Northeastern University, MA, USA Research Associate of the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies Harvard University, MA, USA Peter Gilmartin, Program Director Primary Source, MA, USA Professor Dr. Sean Golden Director, Institut d'Estudis Internacionals i Interculturals (Institute for International & Intercultural Studies) Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain Jeremy Goldkorn, Editor Danwei.org (www.danwei.org), Beijing, China Andrea S. Goldman Assistant Professor of Qing and Modern China Department of History University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Joshua Goldstein Associate Professor, History Department University of Southern California, CA, USA Jack Golson AO, Emeritus Professor Department of Archaeology and Natural History Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University, Australia Professor David S G Goodman Professor of Chinese Politics and Director Institute of Social Sciences University of Sydney, Australia Dr. Christopher Gregg Term Assistant Professor Department of History and Art History George Mason University, VA, USA Gerald V. Griffith, Producer Cartesian Coordinates Fairfax, VA, USA Misha M. Griffith, Graduate Researcher George Mason University, VA, USA Alison Groppe, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Chinese Department of East Asian Languages & Literatures University of Oregon, OR, USA Kenneth J. Hammond, Professor of History New Mexico State University, NM, USA Mette Halskov Hansen, Professor in Chinese Studies Department of Culture Studies and Oriental Languages University of Oslo, Norway David Hawkes, translator and writer Oxford, England Nancy Hearst Fairbank Center Harvard University, MA, USA Professor Gail Hershatter Distinguished Professor, Department of History University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA Christian A. Hess RCUK Academic Fellow/Assistant Professor Department of History University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Joan Hinton Beijing, China Dahpon David Ho Assistant Professor in History, American University Washington, D.C., USA Isaac Ho, student University of Southern California, CA, USA Mack P. Holt Professor of History Director of Graduate Studies George Mason University, VA, USA Brian Holton, Assistant Professor Department of Chinese & Bilingual Studies The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Laura Hostetler Associate Professor & Director of Graduate Studies Department of History University of Illinois at Chicago, IL, USA Hu Minghui, Assistant Professor Department of History University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA Dr. Nicole Huang Director, Center for East Asian Studies Associate Professor of Chinese Literature East Asian Languages and Literature University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA Vivian Huang General Manager/Curator Chinese American Arts Council/Gallery 456, NY, USA Former Festival Director Asian American International Film Festival, NY, USA Theodore Huters, Professor of Chinese University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA John Israel, Professor Emeritus University of Virginia, VA, USA Dr. Tamara Jacka Senior Fellow (Associate Professor) Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies College of Asia and the Pacific The Australian National University, Australia Linda Jaivin, novelist and independent scholar and translator Sydney, Australia Dr. Nancy Jervis Independent Scholar New York City, NY, USA Nan Jiang, Associate Professor University of Maryland, MD, UDA David Johnson Professor of History University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA Heidi Johnson Columbia, SC, USA Professor Margaret Jolly Head Gender Relations Centre College of Asia and the Pacific The Australian National University, Australia Professor William A. Joseph Department of Political Science Wellesley College, MA, USA Professor Ellen R. Judd Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Professor Department of Anthropology University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada Harold L. Kahn, Professor emeritus Stanford University, CA, USA Kang Wenqing History Department Cleveland State University, OH, USA Jian Kao Engineer of Telcordia Technology Marlboro, NJ, USA Yasuhiko Karasawa Associate Professor (History) Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan Professor Fumitoshi Karima Graduate School of Arts & Sciences The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan Rebecca E. Karl, Associate Professor East Asian Studies & History Departments New York University, NY, USA Dr. Michael Keane, Associate Professor Queensland University of Technology, Australia Dr. David Kelly China Research Centre University of Technology, Sydney, Australia Mills Kelly Associate Dean for Enrollment Development College of Humanities and Social Sciences Director, Master of Arts in Global Affairs George Mason University, VA, USA William W. Kelly, Sumitomo Professor of Japanese Studies Yale University, CT, USA Alec (Do Woo) Kim Engine Auditor, Airworthiness Compliance Qantas, Sydney, Australia Dr. Marjorie King The American School in Taiwan and Independent Scholar Taiwan Richard King, Director Centre for Asia-Pacific Initiatives University of Victoria Victoria BC, Canada Dr. Andrew Kipnis The Australian National University, Australia Victor Koski student School of Humanities and Social Sciences History Department George Mason University, VA, USA Professor Richard Kraus Political Science University of Oregon, OR, USA Dr. Joachim Kurtz Associate Professor of Chinese Dept. of Russian and East Asian Languages and Cultures Emory University, GA, USA Research Group Director Max Planck Institute for the History of Science Berlin, Germany Helen Lansdowne Centre for Asia-Pacific Initiatives University of Victoria Victoria, BC, Canada Fabio Lanza Assistant Professor, Department of History University of Arizona, AZ, USA Kevin Lawrence Associate Director, Teach China China Institute, NY, USA Eugenia Lean Assistant Professor in Chinese History Columbia University, NY, USA Amy Lee, graduate student University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA Andrew Y. Lee, Ph.D. University Libraries George Mason University, VA, USA Chin-Chuan Lee Professor Emeritus of Journalism and Mass Communication University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Dr. Mabel Lee Honorary Associate Professor in Chinese Studies Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities University of Sydney, Australia |
Andre Lévy,
professeur
émérite à l'université de Bordeaux University of Bordeaux, France Li Jie, Ph.D. Candidate East Asian Languages and Civilizations and Film Studies Harvard University, MA, USA Jin Li, Ed.D. Associate Professor of Education and Human Development Brown University, RI, USA Lillian M. Li, Professor of History Swarthmore College, PA, USA Lin Chun London School of Economics, UK Pearl Lin Hualian Travel International Corporation CT, USA Vivian Lin, Professor of Public Health School of Public Health La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia Liu Baisha, Lecturer in Chinese University of Oslo, Norway Liu Xiaohong, writer and independent scholar, USA Ph.D., Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies Xiaoxi Liu, Ph.D Program Manager, GE Liu Xiaoyuan, Professor of History Iowa State University, IA, USA Peter Lorentzen, Assistant Professor of Political Science University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA Michael Lou History Department Milton Academy, MA, USA Dr. Lu Hongwei, Associate Professor Asian Studies University of Redlands, CA, USA Alexander Lugg, Ph.D. Candidate Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia Jean Ma, Assistant Professor Art and Art History Stanford University, CA, USA Professor Colin Mackerras Emeritus Professor, AO, Griffith Business School Griffith University, Queensland, Australia Rebecca MacKinnon, Assistant Professor Journalism & Media Studies Centre University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Professor John Makeham College of Asia and the Pacific The Australian National University, Australia Professor Susan Mann History Department University of California, Davis, CA, USA Maria Rita Masci, translator of contemporary Chinese literature Rome, Italy Dr. James Matthews, Geologist Total, Exploration and Production Pau, France Carol C. Mattusch Mathy Professor of Art History George Mason University, VA, USA Rachel May, editor and translator Canberra, Australia Dr. Lewis Mayo Lecturer in Chinese Studies Asia Institute University of Melbourne, Australia Dr. Edward McDonald School of Asian Studies University of Auckland, New Zealand Anne McLaren, Associate Professor Asia Institute, Chinese Language and Culture Studies University of Melbourne, Australia Joseph T. Miller, Ph.D. Adjunct Assistant Professor, Political Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Professor John Minford Head, China Centre, College of Asia & the Pacific The Australian National University, Australia Professor Brian Moloughney Head of the School of Languages and Cultures Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Michelle S. Mood, Visiting Assistant Professor Political Science and International Studies Kenyon College, OH, USA Professor Andrew Morris Professor and Department Chair, History Department California Polytechnic State University, CA, USA Dr. Katherine Morton Department of International Relations Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University, Australia Dr. Russell Leigh Moses Dean, The Beijing Center for Chinese Studies Beijing, China Marc L. Moskowitz Visual Anthropology Review Editor, American Anthropologist Acting Director of Asian Studies, Department of Anthropology University of South Carolina, SC, USA Mu Aili, Assistant Professor Iowa State University, IA, USA Marco Mueller, Director Venice International Film Festival Venice, Italy Alfreda Murck, independent scholar Beijing, China Dr. Mary Ann Murphy Associate Professor, Communication Studies Director of the Center for Community Outreach at Dyson College and Project Pericles at Pace Pace University, NY, USA Julia K. Murray, Professor of Art History University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA Gaby Naher Chair, Sydney PEN Writers in Prison Committee Sydney, Australia Rebecca Nedostup Associate Professor of Chinese History Boston College, MA, USA Jennifer M. Neighbors Assistant Professor History Department and Asian Studies Program University of Puget Sound, WA, USA Simon T M Ng The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Danny Nikolovski Technical Records Airworthiness Compliance & Maintenance Contracts Qantas Engineering Services, Sydney, Australia Professor Michael Nylan Chinese History University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA Tim Oakes Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Geography University of Colorado, CO, USA Judith Pabian Head, Research Grants Office College of Asia and the Pacific The Australian National University, Australia Scott Pacey, Ph.D. Candidate The Australian National University, Australia Professor John N. Paden Clarence J. Robinson Professor of International Studies Co-Director, Center for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation George Mason University, VA, USA Paola Paderni, Press Attaché Italian Embassy, Beijing, China Eric Pelzl Instructor of Mandarin Chinese Wisconsin Lutheran College, WI, USA Richard Peña, Program Director The Film Society of Lincoln Center New York, NY, USA Xiaojia Peng, artist New Hampshire, USA Dr. Benjamin Penny Chair, ANU China Institute, Fellow, History of China Division of Pacific and Asian History Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University, Australia Andrew Pike Managing Director Ronin Films, Australia Dr. Brian Platt Associate Professor and Chair Department of History and Art History George Mason University, VA, USA Professor Kenneth Pomeranz Chancellor's Professor of History University of California, Irvine, CA, USA Qiao Huizhen Director (Retired) Beijing Review, Spanish edition Bradly W. Reed, Associate Professor Department of History University of Virginia, VA, USA B. Ruby Rich Professor & Chair Community Studies Department & Social Documentation Program University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA Jeffrey L. Richey, Ph.D. Director, Asian Studies Program Berea College, KY, USA Dr. Richard Rigby Executive Director ANU China Institute, Australia Dr. Claire Roberts Research Fellow, Division of Pacific and Asian Studies RSPAS, The Australian National University, Australia Moss Roberts, Professor of Chinese New York University, NY, USA Professor Lisa Rofel Chair, Department of Anthropology University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA Carlos Rojas Assistant Professor of Chinese Cultural Studies Duke University, NC, USA Lester Ross WilmerHale, Beijing Office Beijing, China Madelyn Ross Director, China Initiatives George Mason University, VA, USA Haun Saussy Bird White Housum Professor of Comparative Literature Yale University, CT, USA Scott Savitt Research Fellow, Chinese Media Studies Program Duke University, NC, USA Sigrid Schmalzer, Assistant Professor University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA Dr. R. Keith Schoppa Professor/Doehler Chair in Asian History Loyola College in Maryland, MD, USA Susan Schulze, Ph.D. History and Art History Department George Mason University, VA, USA Professor Mary Scott Humanities San Francisco State University, CA, USA Professor Mark Selden Cornell University, NY, USA Hugh Shapiro Associate Professor of Chinese History University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA Dajun Shen (Sang Ye) Research Fellow, College of Asia & the Pacific The Australian National University, Australia Victor Shih Assistant Professor of Political Science Northwestern University, IL, USA Sim Chi Yin China Correspondent, Beijing Bureau The Straits Times, Singapore S.A. Smith European University Institute Florence, Italy Matthew H. Sommer Associate Professor of Chinese History Stanford University, CA, USA Song Shaopeng, Associate Professor Renmin University of China Naomi Standen Senior Lecturer in Chinese History School of Historical Studies Newcastle University, UK Anne Marie Stein Dean of Professional and Continuing Education Massachusetts College of Art and Design, MA, USA David Stoll Associate Professor of Anthropology Middlebury College, VT, USA Professor David Strand Charles A. Dana Chair of Political Science and East Asian Studies Dickinson College, PA, USA Andrew Strominger, Professor of Physics Harvard University, MA, USA Dr. Warren Sun Chinese Studies Program Monash University, Australia Dr. Li Tana Senior Fellow, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University, Australia Dr. Jeremy Taylor Lecturer, School of East Asian Studies University of Sheffield, England Professor Frederick Teiwes Emeritus Professor of Chinese Politics at the University of Sydney University of Sydney, Australia Dr. Greg M. Thomas, Associate Professor The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong Neil Thompson New York, NY, USA Ellen Wiley Todd Associate Professor, Art History George Mason University, VA, USA Maureen Todhunter Griffith University, Australia Dr. Luigi Tomba, co-editor, The China Journal Department of Political and Social Change College of Asia & the Pacific The Australian National University, Australia Dr. Jasmine Tong Assistant Professor of Translation Lingnan University, Hong Kong Nhung Tuyet Tran Canada Research Chair in Southeast Asian History Assistant Professor, Department of History University of Toronto, Canada Professor James Trefil Clarence J. Robinson Professor of Physics George Mason University, VA, USA JB Treseler, teacher Dr. Sue Trevaskes Research Fellow, Griffith Asia Institute Griffith University, Australia Steve Tsang Fellow and University Reader in Politics St Antony's College Oxford University, UK Professor Jonathan Unger Contemporary China Centre Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University, Australia Dr. Paola Voci Senior Lecturer, Department of Languages and Cultures University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Ezra F. Vogel Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences, Emeritus and former director, Fairbank Center Harvard University, MA, USA Joanna Waley-Cohen Collegiate Professor of Chinese History Department of History New York University, NY, USA Dr. Aihe Wang, Associate Professor The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong Professor Ban Wang East Asian Studies and Comparative Literature Stanford University, CA, USA Hongying Wang Director, East Asia Program The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Syracuse University, NY, USA Wang Lixiong, writer Beijing, China Ruike Wang, student Ohio Wesleyan University, OH, USA Wang Zheng, Ph.D. Associate Professor Women's Studies Department University of Michigan, MI, USA Ding Xiang Warner Associate Professor of Chinese Literature Cornell University, NY, USA Jeffrey N. Wasserstrom, Professor of History University of California, Irvine, CA, USA Sasha Su-Ling Welland, Assistant Professor Anthropology & Women Studies University of Washington, WA, USA Teresa Wright, Professor and Graduate Coordinator Department of Political Science California State University, Long Beach, CA, USA Professor Tim Wright Professor of Chinese Studies School of East Asian Studies and White Rose East Asia Centre The University of Sheffield, UK Dr. Guoguang Wu Chair in China and Asia-Pacific Relations Centre for Asia-Pacific Initiatives University of Victoria Victoria BC, Canada Wu Yi-Li Associate Professor of History Chair, International Studies Program Albion College, MI, USA Anne Xu, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Chinese Department of Classical and Modern Language Austin College, TX, USA Guobin Yang Associate Professor Asian/Middle Eastern Cultures Barnard College, Columbia University, NY, USA Professor Mayfair Yang Director, Asian Studies Program University of Sydney, Australia Rae Yang, Associate Professor East Asian Studies Department Dickinson College, PA, USA Walt G. Yang, student Dr. Mike Yao Assistant Professor of Media and Communication City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Weili Ye, Professor of History and Women's Studies University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, USA Catherine Yeh, Associate Professor Department of Modern Languages and Comparative Literature Boston University, MA, USA Sam Zhiguang Yin, Ph.D. Candidate Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies President, Cambridge International Forum for Development University of Cambridge, UK Marilyn Young, Professor of History New York University, NY, USA Zang Dongsheng, Assistant Professor of Law University of Washington School of Law, WA, USA Dr. Peter Zarrow Institute of Modern History Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan Elya J. Zhang, Assistant Professor in History Fordham University, NY, USA Dr. Jing Zhang Assistant Professor of Chinese Language and Culture New College of Florida, Sarasota, FL, USA Karl Zhang, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Director of Chinese Program Department of Modern and Classical Language Academic Director, Confucius Institute George Mason University, VA, USA Zhong Xueping, Assistant Professor Tufts University, MA, USA |
http://www.tsquare.tv/film/jenzabar_lawsuit.html
These web pages are the sole responsibility of the Long Bow Group, and are in no way affiliated with or sponsored by Jenzabar, Inc.
Related pages: An Appeal for Support | About Chai Ling and Jenzabar, Inc.
For nearly two years the Long Bow Group tried to
negotiate a settlement
with Chai Ling and Jenzabar's lawyers. During this time, we were
careful not to publicize the lawsuit. However, in April 2009,
Jenzabar's lawyers
declared that they had no interest in settling the case; given our
limited resources, Long Bow decided to appeal to the public for
help.
Elsewhere on this site, we have posted a letter of appeal
seeking support for the principles of
free speech and academic freedom which we feel are being threatened by
this lawsuit. Please know that signing the appeal letter carries no
legal obligations, responsibilities, or commitments of any kind, nor
does it mean that you necessarily agree with opinions expressed in
either the Long Bow Group's films or its websites.
In May 2007, Jenzabar, Inc., its CEO Robert Maginn, Jr., and its President Chai Ling, filed suit in Boston against the Long Bow Group, claiming defamation and trademark infringement. Specifically, the complaint cited the posting of articles about Chai Ling and Jenzabar on this website and the use of the term "Jenzabar" in the keywords or "metatags" used to index and describe the contents of certain pages of the site. On the first page of their complaint, Chai Ling, Maginn, and Jenzabar claimed that Long Bow was "Motivated by ill-will, their sympathy for officials in the Communist government of China, and a desire to discredit Chai, a former student leader in the pro-democracy movement in China's Tiananmen Square..." In response to the complaint, Long Bow filed a motion to dismiss all claims. In August 2008, the court granted the motion in part and dismissed all of the defamation claims. On the trademark claims, the court recognized that "Jenzabar seems unlikely to prevail on this claim because of the dissimilarity of Long Bow's business," but nevertheless allowed Jenzabar to try to prove its claims.
This page summarizes key aspects of the claims made by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit and the court's ruling. To view the actual filings from the case, please click here.
Defamation
The lawsuit's defamation claim centered on a Boston Globe column about Chai Ling and Jenzabar that was published in 2003 and later excerpted on our website. This column, "American Dream," written by Steve Bailey, included the following quote, which was taken verbatim from papers filed publicly in a lawsuit against Chai Ling, Robert Maginn, and Jenzabar: "Five former executives have sued Jenzabar, including the former chief financial officer [Joseph DiLorenzo], who accused Chai and Maginn of 'a number of unethical, inappropriate, and/or illegal actions.'" The Globe column (and Long Bow's page of excerpts) also contained the disclaimer that "Jenzabar has denied the claims and resolved some of the disputes." In other words, the only specific alleged defamatory statement was in fact made by DiLorenzo during a lawsuit against Jenzabar; the Globe truthfully reported on the statement, and Long Bow, in turn, quoted from the Globe. Both Long Bow and the Globe reported DiLorenzo's accusation as merely an allegation, not as a statement of fact. Long Bow and the Globe also reported that Jenzabar denied the former CFO's claim.
The Globe column not only mentioned lawsuits against Jenzabar, it also discussed Chai Ling's recent activities in the context of her actions during the 1989 protests. In this discussion, the column prominently referenced her portrayal in Long Bow's film, The Gate of Heavenly Peace. The column stated: "Over the years the image of Chai has become decidedly mixed... The harshly critical documentary The Gate of Heavenly Peace captured that emerging view best in an interview that Chai gave in a Beijing hotel room..." The column goes on to quote from the interview. Long Bow first posted the Globe column in 2004, in a section of the website that provides background information about people who appear in the film. The information includes, as much as possible, a follow-up on each character's post-Tiananmen life. Only those viewers who are specifically interested in finding out more about Chai Ling are directed to the subpages on Chai Ling and Jenzabar.
As for DiLorenzo's lawsuit, according to Jenzabar he retracted his allegations in December 2005. DiLorenzo wrote a letter of apology to Chai and Maginn on September 22, 2006. To the best of our knowledge, none of this information was ever published by the Boston Globe or any other media outlet. Jenzabar itself did not inform Long Bow about the retraction and apology until February 2007, via a letter from the company's lawyer, which included the following demand: "Your republication of these statements is defamatory, and we insist that you remove the false and defamatory articles and statements on your Web pages." In response, Long Bow updated and modified the pages containing the Globe column and other information about Jenzabar. The lawyer's letter, fully detailing Jenzabar's point of view, and DiLorenzo's letter of apology, were posted on our website in their entirety. (See Jenzabar's letters to the Long Bow Group.) Nevertheless, Jenzabar proceeded with a lawsuit against the Long Bow Group in May 2007.
Given the timeline of events (that is, the fact that Long Bow posted the column in 2004, when the lawsuit was still active), the court decided that "the question becomes whether Long Bow had any kind of continuing duty to investigate the accuracy of the Boston Globe article, i.e., whether DiLorenzo was still accusing the plaintiffs of inappropriate actions." The court concluded emphatically: "There is no such duty. Jenzabar cannot sustain a defamation claim based on Long Bow's publication of the Boston Globe article." (from the judge's Decision on the Motion to Dismiss)
The defamation allegations went beyond the Globe column. Jenzabar, Chai Ling, and Maginn also alleged that The Gate of Heavenly Peace site "presents a small and misleading sample of articles critical of [Chai Ling's] past, her political activism, and her business ventures." (See this page.) None of these articles were identified in the complaint. Nor did the complaint allege that anything reported in these unspecified articles was untruthful, inaccurate or defamatory. In essence, as Long Bow argued to the court, Jenzabar, Chai Ling, and Maginn were trying to hold Long Bow liable for defamation simply for compiling truthful, non-defamatory articles about Chai's "past, her political activism, and her business ventures." Long Bow argued that such a compilation of critical news articles is fully protected by the First Amendment and cannot be the basis for a defamation claim. The judge's ruling on the Motion to Dismiss focused heavily on the fact that the plaintiffs did not even claim that the articles quoted and compiled on the website were false: "Notably, Jenzabar does not allege that the articles are false. . .. To survive this motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs must allege falsity, which they have not done."
As a result of the court's ruling, all of the defamation claims against Long Bow have been thrown out of the case.
Trademark Infringement
Unfortunately, Jenzabar also attempted to cast its objections to our website as trademark violations. In the complaint, Jenzabar alleged that Long Bow's references to the Jenzabar "Marks" -- i.e., its trademarked name, Jenzabar -- in the keywords or "metatags" used on The Gate of Heavenly Peace website constitute trademark infringement and trademark dilution. Jenzabar claimed that Long Bow by using Jenzabar's trademarks was "diverting consumers who are searching for Jenzabar's products and services to the derogatory content published on the Site."
We take the view, of course, that trademark law does not stretch so far as to squelch the mere reference to a company's name on a website that reports news about the company and its officials, especially when there is no competition involved.
In fact, The Gate of Heavenly Peace website does not use Jenzabar's logo, lettering, or tag line on any of its pages. It simply uses the company's corporate name, Jenzabar, to refer to the company. Moreover, a clear disclaimer on the relevant pages states that the site "is in no way affiliated with or sponsored by Jenzabar, Inc." Even without such a disclaimer, we feel that no reasonable person could believe that our website was sponsored or endorsed by Jenzabar. Nor could anyone conceivably mistake the two companies. As the court recognized: "Jenzabar develops software; Long Bow makes films. A prospective Jenzabar customer might be distracted by Jenzabar's mark appearing on Long Bow's site, but they would not be confused."
The Gate of Heavenly Peace website uses the term Jenzabar in the metatags of pages that specifically cover Chai Ling and Jenzabar. Other metatags on these pages include "Chai Ling," "Gate of Heavenly Peace," and "Tiananmen Square." Likely search terms are commonly inserted into metatags as part of standard HTML coding practices. The term Jenzabar is also used in the filenames of two pages ("jenzabar.html" and "jenzabar_letters_2007.html"). HTML page names often use straightforward terms to identify a page's content. For example, other filenames on The Gate of Heavenly Peace site include "harvard.html," "Newsweek.html," and "latimes.html." We feel strongly that our website's use of the term "Jenzabar" in the metatags or in an html filename is not the kind of "use" to which trademark law applies. We simply use the term "Jenzabar," among other terms, to accurately describe and index the content of that webpage. One can hardly describe the content of a page about Chai Ling and Jenzabar without using the terms "Chai Ling" and "Jenzabar."
Nevertheless, the legal standard that applies to motions to dismiss is very low and requires a court to assume for the benefit of plaintiffs that everything asserted in a complaint is true. In our case, the judge concluded that Jenzabar had met this low standard on the trademark claims. In making her ruling, the judge stated that "Jenzabar has adequately pled the likelihood of confusion element, which is all that is required to survive a motion to dismiss. The trademark claims will stand." However, she also pointedly remarked that "Jenzabar seems unlikely to prevail on this claim because of the dissimilarity of Long Bow's business..."
Jenzabar is now pursuing the trademark claims against the Long Bow Group.
We believe that, in essence, Jenzabar, Chai Ling, and Robert Maginn, Jr. are attempting to censor The Gate of Heavenly Peace website under the guise of trademark law. Ironically, in public statements promoting Jenzabar, Chai Ling has spoken forcefully about the importance of free speech and the Internet. For example:
"The Internet is a powerful tool for communication and free speech, a technology that knows no country boundaries and empowers people to change... The Internet and technology business can bridge the gap between U.S. and China relations, bringing more freedom to the people of China."(See more quotes by Chai Ling on the Internet and freedom.)Business Wire, April 13, 1999
"The students in China need to be informed about what's really going on around the world. So, the BBC, Voice of America, Hong Kong TV, new media or the Internet media can help communicate the truth. And the truth will lead to peace!"Tiananmen 10 Years On, New Perspectives Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4, Summer 1999
"The Internet itself is democracy," said Chai Ling, a former student leader in 1989 and now a Web entrepreneur who has started her own Web company, called Jenzabar. "That's why people like us who fought for freedom and democracy in China ten years ago naturally embraced the Internet."Ten Years Later: Chinese Dissidents Using Net, CNET, June 7, 1999
It is difficult to believe that a person who spoke so emphatically about the power of the Internet and the value of free expression could now be suing to prevent Long Bow from publishing a website that contains newsworthy information about her and her story.
http://www.tsquare.tv/film/jenzabar.html
The information on these pages about Chai Ling and Jenzabar, the software company she runs with her husband, Robert Maginn, contains excerpts from and links to articles about Jenzabar in The Boston Globe, Forbes, Business Week, and other publications, and is intended to provide the reader with additional information about Chai Ling, one of the most well-known and controversial figures from the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. These web pages are the sole responsibility of the Long Bow Group, and are in no way affiliated with or sponsored by Jenzabar, Inc.
About Chai Ling and Jenzabar, Inc. | News AccountsTwenty years after the events of 1989, Chai Ling and her company, Jenzabar, are attempting to censor this website.
Click the following links to read a summary of their lawsuit against the Long Bow Group, and to read an online appeal for support.
See also the Times of London, May 4, 2009: Tiananmen activist Chai Ling sues makers of film about 1989 protest
and the New Yorker, May 7, 2009: The American Dream: The Lawsuit
In 1998, Chai Ling founded a software company, Jenzabar, of which she is President and COO; her husband, Robert Maginn, is the CEO. Jenzabar has received considerable publicity in part because of Chai Ling's role in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests.
Jenzabar itself, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, "plays up the past celebrity of its founder, Chai Ling. ...Company press releases, which invariably note that Ms. Chai was 'twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize,' breathlessly describe Jenzabar as a tool to 'create another kind of revolution,' fueled by communications technology." (Sept. 3, 1999, "Colleges Get Free Web Pages, but With a Catch: Advertising")
Chai Ling has also actively cultivated her public image and openly expressed her desire to use her connection to Tiananmen Square to promote her current activities. As stated in the South China Morning Post ("Seizing the Day All for Herself", written on the 10th anniversary of the June 4 massacre):
Ms Chai's publicist has been reminding the world that Ms Chai's job prior to being smuggled out of China to the United States was "leading thousands of students against a communist government more ruthless than Microsoft".
She also suggested that June 4 would be a good opportunity to write about Ms Chai's Internet start-up which runs a site called jenzabar.com.
"Ling is a dynamic personality who has found many similarities between running a revolution and an Internet start up," journalists have been told. "Ling used the techniques and charisma of a true revolutionary to impress the CEOs of Reebok, WebTV/Microsoft and Bain to back Jenzabar."
As a public persona, Chai Ling has attracted attention from
multiple media sources. A number of stories published about Jenzabar
begin with the saga of the student leader from China who became a
successful entrepreneur in America. For example, a Business Week
(June 23, 1999) headline reads, "Chai Ling: From Tiananmen Leader to
Netrepreneur." Computerworld (May 6, 1999) leads with:
"Tiananmen activist turns software entrepreneur." Or as Forbes
(May 10, 1999) puts it, "From Starting a Revolution to Starting a
Company."
Other
articles from the
international press present different perspectives on Chai Ling and
her relationship with the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. See, for
example, American
Dream (The Boston Globe, Aug. 8, 2003, byline: Steve
Bailey), which concludes:
After Tiananmen, Chai detractors said her hero's image did not square with her hardball tactics. Now her critics are saying much the same again, this time about her corporate life. Meanwhile, Chai continues to sell her story of the Tiananmen heroine-turned-American-entrepreneur. "Today, I am living the American dream," Chai told Parade magazine in June.Daniel Lyons, in Forbes.com (Great Story, Bad Business, Forbes.com, Feb. 17, 2003, byline: Daniel Lyons), notes:
With Ling Chai, distinguishing the dream from the reality has always been the hardest part of all.
Chai Ling would like total control over her biography. In her version, she risks her life leading student protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989, escapes China stowed in a crate and is twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Then she moves to America and marries a millionaire venture capitalist who bankrolls her promising internet startup. Alas, the market crashes before the company can go public, and it is unfairly besieged by lawsuits from former executives....
"You're not going to write about that, are you?" Chai says, when asked about the suits. "Do you really have to mention those things?" Chai's seeming naiveté is a little out of character. She has frequently scored points in the press by recalling her glory days as onetime 'commander-in-chief' of rebel students in Beijing.
Lyons may have been referring to an article written about Jenzabar by Chai Ling herself, which is headlined: "Revolution Has Its Price: In Tiananmen Square, she was a student leader who stood up to tanks. In the U.S., she became a software executive who had to deal with venture capitalists. Guess which one was the tougher opponent." In the article, Chai Ling wrote:
For me, the longest hour and the longest night I ever lived was in Tiananmen Square, in 1989, when the student movement tried to demand democracy of our nation's unyielding governors. My role was to lead a hunger strike for seven days and nights. We tried to be peaceful. We tried to be rational. But the end result was tanks, bloodshed and the massacre of innocent people.
Here, at least, power in Washington can change hands without bloodshed, according to the expressed will of the people. And economic revolution, even a minor one such as that fostered by Jenzabar, occurs without bloodshed. Even in the dot com bust, no one had to die.
But the creation of a company is no less stressful than running a hunger strike in Tiananmen Square.
... But I am happy, because I am the leader of another student movement. I have been given the chance, by fate, to help the youth of America prepare for the next century.
... As we found in China, even the most determined authority can't put technology back in the bottle.
Which makes its dispersion the greatest revolution any student, faculty member or administrator who cares about freedom of thought can be involved in.
In other contexts, Chai Ling has appeared more reluctant to discuss her role in the 1989 events. In "Anatomy of a Massacre" (Village Voice, June 4, 1996), Richard Woodward made multiple attempts to interview Chai Ling for a cover story about The Gate of Heavenly Peace and her role in the student protest movement. "At first she was 'too busy.' When I offered to call at another time, she said with fatigue, 'It's over. I don't want to get involved.'"
Similarly, in his book Bad Elements: Chinese Rebels from Los Angeles to Beijing, Ian Buruma describes a meeting he had with Chai Ling in 1999:Because of her status as a public figure, future media coverage will continue to throw light on Chai Ling for those who are interested in following her story.We met for a cappuccino in a nice outdoor café in Cambridge, Massachusetts… Chai handed me a folder with promotional material. It contained references to her career at the Harvard Business School and her "leadership skills" on Tiananmen Square. She spoke to me about her plans to liberate China via the Internet. She joked that she wanted to be rich enough to buy China, so she could "fix it." But although she was not shy to use her celebrity to promote her business, she was oddly reluctant to discuss the past. When I asked her to go over some of the events in 1989, she asked why I wanted to know "about all that old stuff, all that garbage." What was needed was to "find some space and build a beautiful new life." What was wanted was "closure" for Tiananmen. I felt the chilly presence of Henry Ford's ghost hovering over our cappuccinos in that nice outdoor café. >From being an icon of history, Chai had moved into a world where all history is bunk.
[Ian Buruma, Bad Elements: Chinese Rebels from Los Angeles to Beijing (New York: Random House, 2001), pp. 9-10.]
http://news.cnet.com/Ten-years-later-Chinese-dissidents-using-Net/2100-1023_3-226748.html
June 7, 1999 1:00 PM PDT
Ten years later: Chinese dissidents using Net
By Jim
Hu
Staff Writer, CNET News
Increasingly, dissidents in mainland China and abroad are using the Internet--especially email--as a conduit to voice their ongoing protests surrounding the 1989 incident. The Internet has proven itself to be a quick and efficient tool to foster discussion and share information barred by the government surrounding the incident.
"The Internet itself is democracy," said Chai Ling, a former student leader in 1989 and now a Web entrepreneur who has started her own Web company, called Jenzabar. "That's why people like us who fought for freedom and democracy in China ten years ago naturally embraced the Internet."
On June 4, 1989, Chinese government troops and tanks in Beijing violently crushed a two month-long student-led demonstration in Beijing. The students, joined by laborers and citizens across the country, called for political reform and an end to widespread government corruption. Hundreds were killed or injured during the swift crackdown.
Ten years later, the Chinese are enjoying a higher standard of living and greater freedoms both economically and politically. Although many Chinese have moved on from the Tiananmen Square incident, the crackdown left an indelible imprint in the minds of former demonstrators and family members of victims. To this day, the government maintains the crackdown was necessary to crush a "counter-revolutionary" movement and ensure stability in Beijing. Chinese dissidents at home and abroad want the government to acknowledge the victims as patriots and national martyrs.
Spamming for change
Many dissidents and pro-democracy activists have found that email as a
powerful way to deliver messages and initiate campaigns.
One of these email campaigns is run former student leaders from 1989, including Wang Dan, a high-profile dissident who gained notoriety last year when he was exiled from China. His group in January started a global email petition calling for the Chinese government to reevaluate its verdict on the Tiananmen Square crackdown. Another group member, Liane Lee, estimates that 20,000 out of the 100,000 signatures obtained since the campaign launched were obtained through email and the organization's Web site June4.org .
The group also has linked up with other human rights groups such as Amnesty International, the Academy of Sciences, the International Labor Congress, and Human Rights in China to put to its petition on their Web sites.
Lee, now a radio correspondent for Radio Free Asia, was among the waves of students from Hong Kong that flew to the mainland to aid demonstrators in Beijing by providing medical supplies and tents. Her experience in 1989 has continued to fuel her determination to reach out to as many people as possible, especially in the mainland.
"For the past ten years I've kept doing all this work to bring justice to those responsible for the massacre," said Lee. "I do it for the victims' families."
Human Rights in China, a nonprofit organization based in New York, also has turned to email to get its word out. Prior to the June 4 anniversary, the group sent out a number of mass emailings featuring articles written by dissidents as well as press conference alerts for prominent dissidents.
The mass emailings are not isolated to groups based in the United States. Activist groups in almost every province in China are creating mass email lists, according to Zhang Weiguo, a visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. Zhang was a journalist in Shanghai before he was jailed for his pro-student stance during the demonstrations. He was jailed twice before coming to the United States in 1993.
He added that activists in China are using email to communicate reformist ideas and to gather signatures for petitions. Email is also becoming more widespread among university students, who are using it to communicate with each other and with their professors.
But according to Michel Oksenberg, a professor of political science at Stanford University, email remains limited to elite pockets of academia and business. And many of the issues that dissidents are promoting, such as democratic reforms and human rights, seem outdated and almost insignificant.
"The issues of concern for the Chinese populace are not necessarily the issues of a decade ago," said Oksenberg.
Nationalism is becoming a more powerful political cry than democratization, as evidenced by the outrage following NATO's recent bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. The day after the bombing, many Chinese Web chat rooms and message boards were flooded with angry messages condemning the bombing.
Thus, many dissidents are seen by the Chinese as pawns of the United States, Oksenberg added.
"Their close association with United States, and the United States' use of them detract from their message because the Chinese are in a more nationalistic phase," he said. "It is an anger not just over the Belgrade bombing, but the perception that the U.S. is bullying China, especially on human rights issues, and that Chinese dissidents are seen as one of the sources of American misperceptions of China."
Freedom--with limitations
While the Chinese government says
it is ready to embrace the power and opportunity of the Internet, it
remains in a quandary over how to control it, according Oksenberg.
On the one hand, China wants to feed the growing numbers of information-hungry business people that are trying to become internationally competitive. But on the flip side, many government officials fear what they see as the potential consequences that could arise with the free flow of information. The government thus continues to curb the flow of information coming into the country, such as blocking politically sensitive email and news from Web sites such as those by the New York Times and the Washington Post.
One step that China has recently taken is the shutting down of many Internet cafes in major cities such as Shanghai and Beijing. According to Zhang, the government justified the move because people were accessing pornographic Web sites.
Despite the government's attempts to regulate the Internet, many have found ways around the barriers.
"The Chinese are caught in all the tensions that are brought on by this amazingly powerful instrument," said Oksenberg. "The Chinese government cannot totally control it even if they constrain the channels."
Surfing for a new China
Some dissidents and exiled student
leaders from the 1989 movement--including Zhang--are creating Web pages
commemorating the victims of the Tiananmen crackdown. Zhang's Web site,
New Century Net,
publishes essays from Chinese scholars that would not be published in
the mainland. June4.org also uses considerable input from exiled
students. The site contains graphic images of the crackdown, articles
written by prominent dissidents, and links to other organizations
seeking change.
Other dissidents, such as Chai Ling, are taking a less confrontational approach to change: They are becoming Web entrepreneurs. Chai, who recently earned a degree from Harvard Business School, started her Web company, Jenzabar, which provides a Web-based intranet application to universities.
While Chai wishes to separate her business from her 1989 activism, she says the Internet will become the main democratizing force in China. Businesses in China will need more information to operate.
"The Internet would eventually function to break down control of free information flow, and break down the monopoly on free speech," said Chai.
http://www.tsquare.tv/film/internet_quotes.htmlThis web page is the sole responsibility of the Long Bow Group, and is in no way affiliated with or sponsored by Jenzabar, Inc.
Click the following links to read a summary of their lawsuit against the Long Bow Group, and to read an online appeal for support.
Related page: About Chai Ling and Jenzabar, Inc.
"In countless ways, the Internet is radically enhancing our access to information and empowering us to share ideas with the entire world. Speech thrives online, freed of limitations inherent in other media and created by traditional gatekeepers."
In a number of past interviews, Chai Ling has spoken about the role of the Internet in promoting free speech and providing access to information. Below are a few excerpts.
New Perspectives Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4, Summer 1999
"Tiananmen 10 Years On" - e-mail interview conducted in June 1999
NPQ: ... Ten years on, do you have any regrets over your tactics in Tiananmen Square?
Chai Ling: ... Regarding the tactics in Tiananmen, I regret that the e-mail system was not available back then. Otherwise we would have had a better way of communicating with the aging leaders to start the dialogue and to reform the country. That is why I am working so hard to set up the Jenzabar network, to provide a new media to enhance day-to-day communication among young people around the world.
... The students in China need to be informed about what's really going on around the world. So, the BBC, Voice of America, Hong Kong TV, new media or the Internet media can help communicate the truth. And the truth will lead to peace!
... [China needs to] stop blocking free access of information through the World Wide Web. If China does not want to be considered a threat and be accepted by the free world, it must stop jailing people for using e-mail to communciate with the rest of the world. Can you imagine being jailed for that?
Ten Years Later: Chinese Dissidents Using Net | CNET News.com | June 7, 1999
"The Internet itself is democracy," said Chai Ling, a former student leader in 1989 and now a Web entrepreneur who has started her own Web company, called Jenzabar. "That's why people like us who fought for freedom and democracy in China ten years ago naturally embraced the Internet."
... While Chai wishes to separate her business from her 1989 activism, she says the Internet will become the main democratizing force in China. Businesses in China will need more information to operate.
"The Internet would eventually function to break down control of free information flow, and break down the monopoly on free speech," said Chai.
ABC World News Sunday, May 30, 1999
"Students No More," with Bill Redeker, Carole Simpson (rush transcript)
This week marks the 10th anniversary of the Chinese military crackdown in Tiananmen Square. Today in Hong Kong, pro-democracy demonstrators took to the streets in memory of the uprising. Some of the students at the center of the protests a decade ago have very different lives today. Here's ABC's Bill Redeker.
BILL REDEKER, ABC News: (voice-over) She was one of the most visible, most charismatic leaders of the pro-democracy movement. Ten years later, Chai Ling is a capitalist with a capital "C," a CEO, in fact, of an Internet company financed in part by Microsoft executives. Maybe not so surprising, considering economic reform was one of the main demands of the protesters in Tiananmen Square.
CHAI LING, CEO, Jenzabar.com: I refuse to simply be an icon of history and stay in the past, because I don't believe that's the only way to help China.
BILL REDEKER: (voice-over) By fleeing to the United States, Chai Ling was able to further her education at Harvard and Princeton. Her company, Jenzabar.com, links students and professors worldwide.
CHAI LING: This kind of new media will absolutely transform a totalitarian regime into a Democratic society.
BBC News: "Where Are They Now?" (June 1999)
Chai Ling: After the massacre, everything, our dreams, crashed. In the last ten years we've been trying to recreate those wonderful moments, and now I think I've found that with the Internet. I love this American dream, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to start a great enterprise.
Revolution has its Price, by Chai Ling (Jan. 20, 2003)
...As we found in China, even the most determined authority can't put technology back in the bottle. Which makes its dispersion the greatest revolution any student, faculty member or administrator who cares about freedom of thought can be involved in.
Business Wire | April 13, 1999, Tuesday (Press Release)
Tiananmen Square Democracy Movement Leader Chai Ling Available to Comment On Chinese Premier Zhu's MIT Speech, April 14, On Technology and Opening China to U.S. Internet Companies
DATELINE: CAMBRIDGE, Mass. ..."Tear down this firewall that blocks the Chinese people from freely communicating on the Internet," said Chai Ling, challenging Premier Zhu to follow through on his promise to allow U.S. Internet companies to register in China. "In China people are arrested for using the Internet for free speech. The Internet is a new and powerful means of communication that if stifled not only hurts free speech, but China's ability to do business in the new Internet economy."
"The Internet is a powerful tool for communication and free speech, a technology that knows no country boundaries and empowers people to change," said Chai Ling, who founded Jenzabar.com after realizing the power of the Internet as a communications tool. "The Internet and technology business can bridge the gap between U.S. and China relations, bringing more freedom to the people of China."
CNN: Tiananmen Activist Turns Software Entrepreneur, May 6, 1999
...Q: But the Chinese government controls students' access to the Internet?
A: Oh yes. Right now, they are monitoring all the access to the World Wide Web and who's using it to do what. But the Internet is much more powerful, and they should give up and let the information flow.
This web page is the sole responsibility of the Long Bow Group, and is in no way affiliated with or sponsored by Jenzabar, Inc.
http://www.tsquare.tv/chinese/film/index.html
《天安门》是一部反映1989年 “六四事件”的大型文献纪录片。 1989年6月4日，中国人民解放军的坦 克摧毁了持续五十天、一度曾有 百万民众参加的和平抗议活动。 《天安门》通过采访当年经历过 这场运动的学生、工人、知识分 子、和政府官员，再现了这五十 天内发生的争端、愤怒、无畏、 亢奋、荒诞、以及种种悲剧，并 对运动中人们所习惯的思维观念 和话语体系提出了批评和质疑。
http://www.tsquare.tv/chinese/film/gindex.html
注：《天安门》文字稿解说词的原始版本为英文，现暂将原版英文解说和中文采访附于此处。《天安门》的全版中文稿已于1997年由明镜出版社出版。
-
引子
-
第一篇：历史
-
第二篇：胡耀邦的逝世和运动的开始阶段
-
第三篇：四二七大游行
-
第四篇：罢课——策略的辩论
-
第五篇：绝食
-
第六篇：戒严
-
第七篇：广场文化
-
第八篇：撤与不撤
-
第九篇：“四君子”绝食
-
第十篇：六四
-
尾声
http://www.tsquare.tv/chinese/archives/index.html
http://www.tsquare.tv/chinese/archives/chailin89528.html
【要和封从德的书《天安门之争》对照着看，看这份所谓“多次核实”的记录究竟玩了什么花招。:) 】
1989年5月28日柴玲与美国记者金培力(Philip Cunningham)作的录影讲话
注:柴玲于1989年5月28日与美国记者金培力(Philip Cunningham)作的录影讲话曾被《联合报》在《天安门一九八九》一书中以《多少人在出卖这场运动，在葬送这场运动！》为题发表，有较多遗漏和不确 之处。本记录稿曾与原录影带多次核实，若有争议之处，请以原录影带为准。
---------------------------------------------
我想这可能是我最后的几句话了。因为现在的形势就是越来越残酷。
我叫柴玲，我今年23岁。我的生日很奇怪，（不清）4月15号，就是胡耀邦逝世的那一天。我家在山东，今年刚满二十三岁，八三年考北大的，北京大学，读了 心理学。八七年考的北师大的研究生，学的是儿童心理。
（断）…… 是在四月二十二号站出来。就是四月十八号，我就开始很关注这场运动。那天情况很紧急，同学们饿得很久了，一直等着李鹏出来接见大家，一直等着这个机会，参 加一下追悼胡耀邦同志的追悼会。可是政府一拖再拖，同学们很愤怒，他们挽起手来要冲进大会堂。我想要是冲进去的话，那天流血就要发生了，那时候我再也不能 忍耐，我就站出来了。那时我嗓子已经哑了，我流着泪喊，隔着那个警察的那条防线拿着话筒喊，我说，处理学生关系的那些官员们，学生委托我们作为代表，请你 们出来听听同学们的要求和呼声。没有人理睬。
那解放军说，你别再喊了，没有用，保护你的嗓子吧。他们有几个摘下水壶给我喝，那时候我已经20多个小时没有喝水，没有吃没有喝。大家的情绪越来越急躁。 在最后的时候，我是个女孩子，我把所有人都推出去。我说，北大的同学拉起手来，我和我爱人两个一块，北大同学赶快撤离天安门广场。我想那时及时撤离避免一 场流血事件。从此以后，我就在北大的筹委会里面干一些事情。
那天我爱人封从德他咬了指头，写了血书，写在手绢上。他写了一个人民，写了一个总理。他很难过，他说: "我，（哽咽）我怎么手上流不出很多血来？"（哭）他没有写完。
当我们的同学跪下，举着那个请愿状的时候，全场的同学都哭了。（抽泣）本来是弹劾政府的一些建议，居然我们必须跪着递上去，而且没有人理睬我们，没有人接 收，同学们都哭了。
那天，后来我就在筹委会里工作。这个经历有很多，我想现在就不再多说了。
（擦眼泪）我的感觉就是说，参加筹委会的同学有热血的，有真诚的，也有个人目的的，有虚荣的。有的人在死亡面前是一副面孔，那么胆怯逃避；可在虚荣面前他 又是另外一副面孔，那么功利。
五月四号那天，我们又举行了一次大的游行，那天本来想发表一个宣言，宣告中国新民主启蒙运动从此开始了。后来就是到了当时，由于“四二七”大游行，到五四 的时候，已经去的同学比较少了，有一种疲倦感。没想到那天很糟糕，有一个作为市高联的，周，当时他是个常委吧，周勇军，他就宣布五月四号，五月五号复课。 而且当时场面搞得很糟糕，同学们当时很多很失望。也可以说这声宣告五月五号复课给全国的学运造成巨大的损失。同学很痛心说，这是有些人想用几亿美元想买都 买不来的，就给他一句话全葬送了，他全自己说出来了。
后来北大的形势也转为低潮，同学复课的越来越多，同学在复课跟罢课之间产生相当大的内耗，内部消耗。我觉得越来越苦闷。终于有一天我们认为，只能，必须， 搞绝食了。也就是四月二十，五月十二号中午的时候。当时市高联的人拼命地反对我们，但是我跟北大的一些同学，我们一再坚持下来。作了一些安排。（杂音）北 大在这个活动中有一个自由论坛，这个自由论坛之所以发起是我和封从德，因为我们很着急，觉得跟同学们沟通的渠道太少，同学们的热情在逐渐下降。那天晚上我 看了看，因为要绝食，就征集绝食同学的签名，只有四十多名同学。在旁边用一张小小的纸，这签名是贴出去的，贴在三角地。在这张小小的纸上，为壮士，为勇士 壮行。把我一下感动了，我觉得很难过很难过。那天自由论坛上我就讲了我的话。
我说，我们绝这个食，就是想看看政府的面孔，看它是镇压，还是不理睬。这次绝食还要看看人民的面孔，看看中国还有没有良心，还有没有希望。
第二天，当天晚上，有些同学就很，自由论坛我讲完以后，有一个同学，有一个男孩就上来，他说，我以前很不屑于参加这种政治，我觉得我自认为是中国的毛泽 东，今天我才感觉到我自己是那么渺小。我爱我的父母，但是我更爱我的祖国！所以他说，我要加入绝食。
第二天，等第二天的时候报名，有二百多个，我想想，也许是四百多个（问：在北大？）在北大。最初我们坚定地参加绝食的只有北大、师大、还有北师院。
那天，（听不清），我们宣誓。我们扎着束带，我的衣服上写着----后来丢了，很遗憾----前面写着“柴玲绝食”；后面写着一个大的“哀”字，这边写着 “有心报国”，这边写着“无力回天”。
当天，就是十二号晚上，有一个女孩子找到我，她说，你们这种绝食宣言太官方了，太formal了。你该用你的生命来写一个绝食的宣言。当天，我们酝酿了好 长好长时间。第二天上午，我们写了一个“绝食书”。这盘磁带录了很多，据说录了一千盘。我希望以后我们筹委会，北大筹委会，也许能搞到。Eric也许有。
第二天，很多老师他们自己用钱来为我们这些绝食的同学来壮行，请我们去吃饭。那天我一直很悲哀很悲哀，因为我写了“绝食书”，又念了。我吃不下东西去。当 天十二号晚上有个作家班的老师叫白梦，他说我在演讲的时候，他们都哭了，而且他匆匆忙忙地出去，给我们买了好多，特意跑到很远的地方去个体户那儿买了几大 盘馄饨给我们吃。那个时候，我们很默契很默契。
而且我说了一句话，我们是在以死的气概为了生而战。死亡绝不是我们的追求，死亡正期待着最永久最广泛的回声。我们用死，我们用生命，我们用生命写成的誓 言，必将晴朗共和国的天空。
中午12点半，同学们就出发了。到师大来集合，一块儿来准备绝食，我们走着（叹气）
问：这个绝食以前在中国是没有的？
没有的。
问：跟谁学的，是跟印度学的还是跟马丁（不清），绝食的主意从哪里来？
这个主意好象最初我们就有，后来大家发起了，我想大家酝酿了很久吧。是自发的。因为我们当时游行罢课政府都可以不理，我们没有办法，我们只好用生命来呼唤 一下，看看你究竟是什么样子的。
绝食最初是不到一千人，第一天晚上，慢慢地扩大到三千，各地的同学纷纷涌来，逐见规模。（不清）当时我在北大，我说我自荐为北大绝食团的召集人，因为我有 一种责任感，我觉得北大的绝食将起很大的作用，我想这样不是居功，我觉得我必须为这四百多个孩子的生命负责。
那天，我都谈，我很坦率。吾尔开希，在十三号晚上阎明复又找我们去谈话，谈了一会儿，我们就很担忧，看天黑了，怕政府采取行动，我跟另外一个同学就退出 了，他们在继续谈。当时绝食团的四个代表，对话团的四个代表，还有高联的几个代表，还有些老师们，我感觉吾尔开希被阎明复那种慈父形象完全感化了。当天 就，就要求，反正就是戈尔巴乔夫14号那天来之前要求大家转移到另外一个地方去。
（对话，不清）
对，但是我觉得，当时我们很不情愿，而且我们一致确定不完不搬，因为，我想引用一位外国记者的话，他说：“人们都说，你们都在绝食了呀，还要你们怎么 样？”可是好多同学忍痛搬过去了，有的人就是被架着过去的。（哭）我为什么那么痛心？是因为当时围观的群众很多，他们不知道怎么回事，一下子弄过去了，一 下子又散了。
第二天早上我，还有李禄找到我，就是现在的副总指挥。他很痛心，他说，如果政府（听不清）这样看着同学一个个这样消耗生命的话，那我们就采取更极端的措 施，他说我们就自焚，如果，如果，政府能够忍心眼看着这些孩子一个一个死掉的话，那么我们就作第一个死掉的人。
我把这句话拿到广播站说了，我说我自己愿意做这个绝食团的总指挥吧，好象是，不记得怎么说的了。而参加这个绝食团唯一的资格应该是在同学们牺牲之前你愿意 首先牺牲自己来使更多的同学们活下去。
最初绝食团就很团结，很纯洁。大批大批的同学倒下去了。救护车越来越响。最初的时候我在前面，有一天看到同学昏倒了，被抬上救护车，我直想哭（哭）。
我不记得是哪一天，可能是第三天，第四天中午，有人冲进大会堂，当时外围纠察队员我们调不上来，然后我们就说，绝食同学，我们，如果你还有体力的话，就站 出来。我们去保护大会堂。绝食同学都扎着白带子，饿了好多天了，我们冲过去，站在警，警察，隔在军队跟那个群众之间，插进来在这里边，然后对群众说，你们 想来冲大会堂，可以，从我门身躯上踏过去吧。（哭）。后来在记者招待会上我就说，我想我们呼吁记者跟我们在一起，给我们作一个公证人，来看看是谁在保卫大 会堂。
当时没有意识到，我们就是可以，因为我们自己在参加绝食，就没有想，当时广场的局面越来越庞大，而这时候市高联的一些领导人出来控制这个局面。就在他们， 我不想责怪什么人，但是我可以认为，市高联以前的一些领导同学首先没有领导素质，再一个动机并不是那么纯洁。对不起，我这样直说，当时我没有想到，后来当 我们忍无可忍的时候，广场局面太乱了，而且绝食工作也基本上快结束的时候，我们觉得必须靠绝食团这个，指挥这个团体，因为它一直这么坚定，来领导广场。
于是有一天我就跟市高联协商，召开联席会议的时候，我们要求要把领导权交给我们，由我们来领导。当我们真正领导的时候，我们才发现广场已经出现那种局面， 就是各种组织层出不穷。市高联在他们在任期间换了182任主席，就那么几天。随便什么人就可召集一个会议，接着拉起一帮人来，然后把人清出去，（不清）又 被别人否定掉，就这么弄来弄去。而学生中又出现什么呢？小的，学阀割据，小学阀，自己拉起一帮人作纠察，而他纠察队长可以说我是纠察总指挥什么的；同学的 健康状况在急剧地恶化下去；市民工人的募捐情况很糟糕，越来越糟糕；那个卫生条件也越来越糟糕，而且那种，爆发大瘟疫的危险越来越加剧。同学情绪处于一种 面临崩溃的边缘——很激动，不太理性，躁狂，容易发脾气。那时我们在收拾以前的市高联留下的那种，就是那种，“军阀混战”的残局，但是另外一方面，我们不 时收到各方面的告急消息。一会儿是今天这边一会儿是镇压，一会儿又是怎么怎么样。我们疲于制定各种应急措施。所以广场到现在，就是这么一个局面。
我们一再叮嘱同学，要精简机构，要坚守。
我说一下现在的时局。现在已经到了一种什么样的情况呢？作为政府，作为李鹏，为什么这样？他通过这几天的事情，他由最初的四个省市支持他已经争取到二十七 个省市，在党里面基本上获得统一。某些外地将军也慢慢都趋从他，或者至少表面上跟他们一致了。而且本来以前军方的力量已经争取到六个军区。而且在党内部中 赵紫阳这一派比较容易改革，思想很民主，或至少他们讲的话中符合群众对民主的要求，逐渐地遭到了清洗控制。
问：听到赵紫阳的消息没有？（不清）
这个没有，都没有消息。只是知道赵紫阳可能是被罢免了。而且他的亲信倒了四百多个什么的
问：阎明复呢？
阎明复肯定是要被清洗的，还有秦基伟之类的。鲍彤，我只知道一点。
而同学这边，就说，政府逐渐形成铁板一块，而同学这边怎么样呢？市民的热情在降下去，市民出现动摇，甚至有些市民开始慰问解放军了。同学这边，首先大部分 同学军心不稳，都很失望，他们不知道，说我们到底要要求什么，我们下一步要干什么。有些同学就很伤心地走了，而且同学中出现了一些那样的情况。有的同学打 着民主的旗号，甚至想把募来的钱自己藏起来，而且又有些同学把市民给的钱拿去商店买东西。我这只是听说，但我想这个消息会有人证明的。
问：有人换外汇，（不清）
对，对。更可怕的是，有些同学逐渐被政府收买，他们作为一种学生中的特务和奸细。政府跟他们讲，你们能让同学撤走的话，那你们就是人民的功臣，国家的功 臣，人民会记得你，国家会记得你。如有些死硬派不撤的话，那么周围的便衣随时你可以调动。
问：你们有感觉吗，就是说有学生叛徒？
绝对有感觉，而且我们有证据。
问：他们给多少钱？
钱我不太清楚。给他们什么样的许诺和交易不清楚。但有一次，我也有一次跟政府接触的机会。我感到他们带有一种强烈的暗示性。
问：这次学生运动有什么……最黑暗是哪一天？
最黑暗还没有到来呢。
可好多同学都不明白，我们现在在广场这是我们最后唯一的阵地了。有人一再主张撤，这撤，唯一高兴的就是政府。我悲哀的是什么呢？我是总指挥，我一再要求这 个权力，掌握这个权力，就是为了抵制这种妥协，这种投降派。而且作为北京高联和外高联，外校的高联，他们很愿意要这种权力。
作为一些知识阶层的人，成立了一个知识，什么各界联合会议爱国维宪委员会，在昨天会上我很愤慨，因为我感觉到这些人也是在利用学运重新塑造他们的形象。我 一再抵制这种倾向，象刘晓波把吾尔开希（断）
对不起，上面说的可以删一下吗？要推举他作发言人什么的。
我在运动中对这类人有些看法，吾尔开希，就是他，曾经利用他的影响，他所处的那种领袖地位，对整个学运产生了很大的破坏作用。这已经发生两次了，最后一次 给我们坚决抵制，而且罢免了。但现在他们有些人要重新树他这个形象。
问：吾尔开希……
这个我们没有证据。感觉就是一些，或者是角度、思考方法不对。当时我跟，还有封丛德，我们说：对不起，我们感到我们跟这次会议的气氛整个很不协调，我们要 求退出指挥部在这个各界联席会议上的席位。
问：那个（不清）是最好的是哪一段时间？
最好的、最团结的，就是绝食团最初的些段日子，那时民众也很支持，很关怀，那时唤醒的是市民的那种感性、感情，慈父心肠，慈母心肠。而且政府在绝食第七天 的时候，对同学施加暴力，市民们自动地去用自己的躯体去阻拦军车。我想那是最辉煌的一页，一下子让市民看清了政府的嘴脸，法西斯的嘴脸。但现在他们通过种 种控制，比如说扣除奖金，开除党籍，等等的这些东西把市民重新给统治住。
我们现在唯一能做的，就是政府这方面已经逐渐的稳固了，我们唯一能做的就是我们在天安门广场坚持，等待看一看人民能不能真正团结起来，因为到最后只有是人 民跟这个与人民作对的政府来较量了。
同学们老在问，我们下一步要干什么，我们能达到什么要求。我心里觉得很悲哀，我没办法告诉他们，其实我们期待的就是，就是流血。就是让政府最后，无赖至极 的时候它用屠刀来对着它的，它的公民。我想，也只有广场血流成河的时候，全中国的人才能真正擦亮眼睛。（哭）他们真正才能团结起来。但是这种话怎么能跟同 学们说？尤其可悲的是，有一些同学，有一些什么上层人士，什么什么人物名流，他们居然为了达到个人的目的，完成自己的一些交易，拼命地在做这个工作，就是 帮助政府，或者不让政府采取这种措施，而在政府最终狗急跳墙之前把我们瓦解掉，分化掉，让我们撤离广场。如果是这种同学们自我崩溃，自我瓦解这样一种情况 下，我们要，要撤回原地的话，那么中国就会这样的一种情况：党内的所有的比较先进的什么思想有点民主意识的人，还有历次运动中，象什么四五运动，象什么反 自由化，清除精神污染历次运动中没有被打下去的人，这次一下全被清洗干净。而且邓小平就说了，是有极少数的人，党内有，好象社会上也有，学生中也有一小 撮。
问：那么（不清），因为邓小平他们说，学生这些事为什么能发生，因为他们没有做他们的工作，没有加以反对资产阶级自由化。
我知道，就是这个意思。完了，让我说吧。
他们就会认为，或者他们就会把以前的没有彻底进行的工作，象反自由化清除干净的工作继续做下去。把一大批这次运动中先进的领袖、学生领袖、和知识界的人 物、社会上的人、各阶层的人士、还有党内的、军内的一些能与他们相抵制的，代表一些人民利益和呼声的这样一些人全部清洗干净，然后他们可以控制或军管新闻 机构，重新把全国的局势稳定下来，终于恢复到一种表面上很安定，很统一的那种“大一统”状态，然后重新搞他们所谓的改革开放。实际上中国要，如果真是让他 们得逞了，那么中国实际上要复辟，复辟四十年，七十年。因为如果这样一大批的人被屠杀，被监禁，被他们残害，多少年以后民族才敢站起来呢？不知道。
问：他们就是用谋杀？
还有逮捕起来以后打，让你精神分裂，对待魏京生就是这种手段。
（哭）所以我觉得很悲哀。这些话没有办法直接跟同学讲，跟同学说，我们就是要在这里流血，用我们的鲜血和生命来唤起民众，同学们肯定会这样做的，但是，他 们是年轻的孩子们（哭）。
（断）
所以从知识界联合会回来以后，我就去与当时来负责保卫我们总部的纠察同学谈了一些，他们说我们不是来当纠察的，我们就想来看看，看看真正什么是民主？北京 在干什么？但是我们看到很失望，我们当一批纠察我们失望一批，我们整个组织究竟在干什么？还有一个同学说我们大批同学都走了，我们本来有五六百人，现在只 剩下十多个人。说我们这些人都坚持下去，都是坚定分子。因为，有一个孩子跟我说：我就是不甘心，我要看看究竟乱到什么程度。
那天我从知识界联合会，就是昨天，回来的时候，我哭了。（哭）我感觉到我那么热爱广场上这几万万的孩子们。（哭）我有责任用我的生命坚持到底，但是我又觉 得我很悲哀，我实在是无力回天，（哽咽）我一个人太有限了！那么多人争夺权力，我从来不迷恋权力，我只是为了，为了良心，我才不愿把这个权力放弃给那一小 撮那种投降派和阴谋家。但是我不知道这些人为争夺这权力，而发起一次一次的攻势。我感觉这不对（哽咽）我就是想全中国的中国人，全世界的华人，我就是想说 中国人，我们作为这个民族太不幸了，不要再自相残杀了！中国的机会已经不多了。（哭）
问：你什么时候开始有这种感觉？
这个感觉，在筹委会，也就是五月十几号，我就是越干越悲哀。大该四月二十几号时我就开始感觉到了。那时我想，我现在也想说但一直不愿说，因为中国人不能骂 中国人，但我不得不说，就是，有时候我想，中国人我不值得为你奋斗！（哭）我不值得为你献身！（哭）
可是我又想到这次运动的确还有很多，很多的，正直的，有良心的学生、工人、市民，也有知识界的人。
问：（不清）你知道很多人愿意牺牲自己，好多年都是这个精神。这真是中国人最可爱最美丽的精神。（不清）
我知道。我想如果今后中国再次陷入黑暗时期，也许中国老百姓再一次受蒙蔽，再一次互相欺骗，彼此没有真正的感情和交流。我只是想说在海外的华人，你们有自 由的环境和人身安全的时候，这个时候，（哭）我希望你们，能够首先做一个先进的中国人，因为你们有条件，有机会（哭）（断）
我感觉到有时候他们就是想了解事情的过程，这事情中进行的这些人的心态，他们怎么想，他们的感受，这点让我觉得痛心，因为最伟大的不是这种表现，而是一种 内在的，一种人性的展示。很少人去揭示这些东西。我有两个朋友，作为知识界，只有他们两个坚持到底。昨天晚上我才知道，好象是于浩成已经被逮捕了。
问：被逮捕了？
被逮捕了。
问：什么时候？
昨天晚上我知道，从他们的嘴里知道。
问：从广场里面被捕？
不是的。可能是在外面。
问：这里从政府官员的嘴里还是？
就是从两个朋友那里。他们俩说，我们要撤，因为我们有个使命，我们要写一部书，要把这个，这过程中，因为我们亲自参加了这场运动，而且我们知道这运动最真 实的是什么。他说我们的使命就是写一部书，争取这最后的机会写一部书，让全世界人民都知道。他们说如果这部书发表了，全世界人民都知道了，那么，那么我们 就是被杀头也甘心了。（哭）
我昨天非常痛心，因为我，（哭）因为我，又一次看到形形色色的人在出卖这场运动，在葬送这场运动，我感到很痛心的就是，最初绝食的这一千多名同学，我可以 说他们的身体健康已经造成了很大的摧残，而这些人（哽咽）要葬送这一千多名同学，还有后来成千上万的人民和同学他们用生命换来的一些成果，他们要葬送掉， 就只是为了他们个人的目的，个人的希望，个人的私利（哭）（摇头）中国人……（哭）
昨天我跟我爱人说，我再也不愿在中国待下去了，我说我想到国外去，因为我学的是心理学，在绝食的第一天我就说过我不是为死而战，而是为了生而战。因为民主 不是一代人的事，我现在更坚定这种信心，如果我有机会活下去的话，那么我会用毕生的精力在中国，从一个孩子降生的时候就跟他说，要作一个正直的、有良心 的、有独立人权和人格的中国人。我要用毕生的精力来培养一批真正的中国人，我不知道我有没有机会这样做了。
我爱人说——在参加运动之前，我们一直在联系去美国留学，他托福考的很高，630，很有希望。他说我只是想到国外去学习几年，中国四五年之内也许没有希望 了，我想有机会出去之后我就学法律、社会学，等等。他说十年之后我要组织一批人写一部中国的宪法，一部人民的宪法（电话铃响）。
我知道我这时候要宣布我辞职，或我引退，同学不会理解，会骂你，我不在乎，整个运动我挨了很多骂，我很淡然。
但是我希望如果我没有能力做这个工作，没有机会做这个工作，会有很多人去做这个工作，我用生命来呼吁。（哭）
问：（不清）
没有。最近我一直感觉到特别悲哀，而且同学，就他们本身的民主素质也是相当差的。而且说句实在的，在我倡议发起绝食这一天我心里就很明白不会有任何成果 的，我早就知道。有些人，有些历史注定是失败的。我一直清楚这一点，但是我一直在努力，在给大家一个坚定的形象，我们在争取胜利，但我心里很明白。
问：绝食（不清）
绝食是在北大和师大的一些同学，他们倡议。但是在这之前我已经想过，但是我没有跟他们，因为当时我在想通过广播站跟同学交流思想，把大家热情都唤起来。后 来当时王丹说要准备绝食，我马上就签了。而且，我当时，后来，有一个北京师范学院的同学，他叫杨朝辉，他也签了名，也是发起人之一。后来北高联的同学一再 劝阻，他说时机不成熟，怎么怎么样，然后这孩子居然，就是杨朝辉又回来说，你们不应该，虽然我是发起人之一，但我认为这样说不妥。后来我就强烈的跟他辩论 说，你怎么能这样，我们已经在做（不清）的工作，而且这个决定没有错。为什么改变主意？后来我和北大几个同学一块去说服市高联，他们始终很抵制。市高联有 些人是有投机倾向，可以这么说。后来当天晚上我跟另外一个叫邵江的同学，他本来13号要考托福，我也要考托福。我说，我请求你不要考了。他说好吧，我去做 市高联的工作，我相信有我有这个影响力。后来当天晚上他们市高联作了一个声明，说，用的字样是对我们这场绝食运动他们表示同情和理解。在我们心理上，我们 感觉到，很愤怒，为什么？你，是个学生，你有什么资格来同情理解我们？要是，真正的态度应该是爱护保护同学，支持同学。这都是一些，我不是想指责任何一个 人，我就想这场运动中，中国知识分子的（断）
非常悲哀，好象中国就没有人材了。
问：你对民主怎么理解？
民主，我没有怎么在理论上（不清）过民主，我想民主应该是很天然的一种要求和需要，使人们都会有自由的，有人权的保障。我们可以自由地选择自己的生活，我 们可以自己有自己的政治观点，我们有自己的生活方式，我们有自己的思想体系。民主也跟人权的解放，人格，独立和自尊的解放，人性的解放连在一起。
问：（不清）对话，跟政府对话，最终达到什么目的？（不清）
我想对话对政府是一个强烈的挑战，因为它建国以来从来没有这么强的对手，来自人民真正的呼声，人民要求，人民开始要求跟它公平地对话，要求监督他的一些政 府领导的过程，人民要参与决策，要求检举不法行为，而不再象中国的“大一统”的黑暗统治。所以政府很害怕，它不敢，政府不敢，因为他们始终在竭力地维护他 们在，他们几十年来苦心经营一种局面，一种对中国广大人民的蒙蔽和欺骗。我想民主最根本的，对每一个人来说就是自我的觉醒。
中国人的人性被压抑的很卑微，包括在这次运动中看得很清楚。好多同学就等着。就象外地的同学来了，我们要吃的，我们要住的，我们要什么什么，你们有什么新 闻告诉我们？你们下一步有什么打算？我觉得很难过。你自己，你有双手，你有喉咙，你有眼睛，你可以听，看，你可以去说，去做，你可以丰衣足食，你也可以有 自己的想法和见解。当然另一方面他们在尽力维持一种领导的权威，这也是对的，但实际上有些同学就很不负责任。他们很习惯于，习惯于一种封建的专制，因为两 千多年来，我们要求民主，包括很多同学都不明白什么是真正的民主。我想这次运动只能说是民主的启蒙运动。
问：你们对官倒、反腐败的问题怎么看？
官倒反腐败是广大人民群众，很强烈地要求政府作自我检讨，自我来监督政府的一些腐败现象，因为以前一直是什么党政一体，党军一体，公安也是一体的。没有任 何能够强有力地，就是有一个独立的什么党，政府和其他的各党派也有领导关系，没有任何一个，途径，没有任何一个机构能监督它，所以它可以为所欲为。
问：去年人们谈论中国学生爱钱，爱赚钱什么的，不像以前的理想型的。很多人也没想到，今年会这么大规模游行。
我想在这之前，由于这个，整个体制改革措施的相当的失败，中国人开始逐渐失去了信仰，他们没有信念，就很功利地，很实际地满足于基本的生存要求，他们就靠 这个，无信仰地生活着。这次整个运动也有一个，有很多很多的胜利，我想中国人重新找到一种信念，就是中国问题要靠中国人民来解决，而不是靠政府，也不是靠 这个国际的什么舆论，必须靠中国人民自己来解决这个问题，很多青年人，很多市民，很多工人和农民，也开始觉醒。
问：你们有没有（不清）
没有，我想至少从我这。我是一种什么样的状态呢？我很喜欢过一种安详的，有一些baby，有一些小动物的那样的，那种，我可以和孩子们在一起，搞自己的研 究，来培养下一代。我很希望过这种很平静，安详的生活。我可以坦率地说，我没有，没有很多虚荣心，功利心。我，我和封丛德结婚，当时那时候很简陋，但我们 很天然地满足这种，而且享受这种生活带来的安详和宁静。我们一直在，尽管很多人都在赚钱，但是我们也很艰苦，我们也拼命地赚钱，但我们不是为了赚钱而赚 钱，而是为了，我们都很坚定，我们现在很艰苦，但是我们都是在搞事业，真正愿意献身事业那样。不知道你们理解不理解。
在此之前，我们一直认为靠知识救国，就是到了四月二十二号那一天，我觉得，我觉得那时候是一种良心，我参加运动始终是一种良心。因为我跟同学讲了，我们现 在在这儿争取民主实际是在给每一个中国人在争取一种权利，自己的权利和利益。我特别想告诉每一位同学，每一个工人，每一个市民，每一个知识分子，甚至每一 个便衣，每一个士兵，就是说我们同学拼着性命在争取这个权利也有你们的一份。我想如果是在大家舍生忘死争取这个权利的斗争中，我坐一边，不去冲锋陷阵，不 去冒这个风险，一旦这个权利到来的时候，我说，给我拿来吧，不要少了我的一份。那个时候我觉得我很惭愧，我做不出这种事情来，我想命中注定我就是这样一种 角色，因为只要你有良心，你就会站出来，你就会走到这一步。
问：现代和过去你有没有可佩服的英雄，理想的英雄？
我想，谭嗣同。给大家一种感觉。他说，我以吾血鉴中华，我用我的鲜血来唤醒民众。我想在我们绝食的时候也是有这种感觉的。
问：（不清）甘地，美国的Martin Luther King的影响？
我想，作为我来说，我想我的所有的作为都是很天然的，我以前对政治并不是特别感兴趣，也绝对不想作一个什么精神领袖什么的来献身。我想搞的就是我安心地搞 我的事业，过一种很安详的生活。也许别的人有这种想法，也有很多思考。
问：（不清）毛泽东（不清）？
我觉得毛泽东作为这个人来说，他不值得佩服，因为如果是毛泽东时代，这种残酷镇压也发生过，而且也会发生。我不欣赏他。
问：有人说把你们的运动和文化大革命比，你有什么感觉？
我觉得他们的想象力太低下。这是一场划时代的——我在13号参加绝食时我就跟同学讲，我说作为我们每一个参加绝食的同学，作为我们每一个所谓的领袖，甚至 作为政府每一个人，作为每一个全国人民，都没有想到，整个中国的学运已经起了划时代的飞跃；他们谁都没有想到，而且一种老性的思维，无论是政府还是学运领 袖，他们总是在犯一些错误，就是他们用以前的偏见来衡量这次运动。
（断）
（哭）我父亲来过北京，那个时候是在五一的时候。我跟我爱人结婚的时候，我们俩感情上有时候有点磨擦，吵架什么的，回家的时候我就跟我父母讲，我父亲就很 担心，他非常非常钟爱我。他就很担心，他很希望，带来好多吃的来看我们，就很希望能跟我们一快玩玩，因为五一，北京气候不错，把我妹妹也带来了。
但是他一来他就知道，我和小封，就是我爱人都已卷入这场学潮了，他一直很担心。而且我们一直忙在北大筹委会工作，没有时间陪他。那天晚上他说我要回家了， 他说我得走，因为我觉得我在这也帮不上你什么忙。他说你怎么办，怎么跟我联系，我说我隔三天给你拍一封电报，跟你说我平安。以后我把这个事情委托一位朋友 做这件事情。
临走时他突然说，（哭）他说，万一，他差点要哭，他说：万一我收不到电报呢？
那时候我就说，"爸，你就不要再来了，来北京也没有用了。"（哭）
我差点要扑上去，我差点要哭了。我爸爸拍拍我说，“不要这样，不要哭着告别，再见再见。”（哭）
他一直很难过。他去济南。我妹妹是读医科大学的，他说：我用自己一生的心血培养了两个珍珠，怎么都卷进来了？因为我妹妹他们也受了一些影响。她说，我太佩 服姐姐了，她这样讲。我真，我父亲，他一直非常要强，有责任心。他是个大夫，他本来可以在事业上很顺利，但最近一下裁军，结果部队就划入地方的编制，不再 属于部队了。他们这一代人很希望，以前他们一直寄托一种平等的靠工作努力然后升级，一步步地，他就希望有自己事业上的要求。可是一下希望就没有了，而且大 家很乱，都在赚钱，都在觉得怎么怎么样。他们觉得他们这一生的信念怎么一下子全垮了。我觉得我父亲他很悲哀，我经常替他们难过。我跟他讨论，他说不对，我 们对共产党还是很有感情的，他说我是农民的儿子，他能成就到今天，也是共产党的培养。我说我不相信他，我说共产党愚弄了你们这一代人，我说你们本来可以得 到的更多更多。不要说共产党吧。
问：他能不能理解？
他能理解我。他说，我父亲就后来说，你们可以有自己的想法，但是他说因为你们这一代没有我们这一代的经历，所以你们可以有自己的想法。我父亲是很开明的人 （哭）
问：（不清）
（哭）我很难过得就是，我父亲他很伤心（哭）很伤心。因为在前几年，我家里受到一场大的灾难，就是我妈妈精神分裂（抽泣）从此我爸爸一个人在支撑家里的负 担。有一次我回家，他很烦，他摔东西，他说（抽泣）“我觉得我再也支撑不下去了，我怎么办？”我也哭了。我不知道对于一个中年人来说，一种家庭，一种（抽 泣）对不起，这些可不可以不要报道，好吗？（断）
……他是一个各方面都承受了很多、忍受很多的一个中国人。可我很对不起爸爸和妈妈（抽泣）我很想活下去就是为了他们（抽泣）我愿意给他们一些慰籍，因为我 觉得（抽泣）如果我（抽泣）出事了，我父亲受不了，因为他跟我说过(电话铃响)这个世界上不再有什么祈求，我就是，我把我一生的希望寄托在你们三个宝贝上 ——我一个、妹妹、还有一个弟弟，他说你们三个是我的骄傲。因为我妈妈那种精神上的疾病，不太能理解他，他中年很孤独，他需要理解。我们在外面读书，没有 办法经常跟他交流，我弟弟还小，不太了解。（抽泣）
问：如果你是政府呢，你如何处理这些问题？
我想政府一定会疯狂的报复我们这些人的，因为中国人的报复心很强，我不报任何幻想。
问：如果最理想的方法，你希望对话？
不可能。
问：这样说就是作梦？
作梦，真是，白日作梦。
问：但是很明显你们还是希望解决几个问题的。
我当时，第一次对话不是中断了吗，当时我拿了五页的“绝食书”，我希望在对话实现场直播，我想放一下，让大家让全国人民听听我们绝食的同学怎么想，让他们 了解我们为什么。我当时还报着幻想，我可以感化他们。
问：政府中有没有人支持你们？（不清）
肯定有这样的人的。而且我感觉到，如果人民的力量很坚强的话，政府就勉强维持这种统一地位很快就会土崩瓦解，包括那些投机派，也会纷纷站在人民这一边的。 但是必须靠全中国人民，全世界人民都团结起来。
问：你希望其它城市市民，什么上海、西安，也参加运动？
因为说句实在话，我觉得这场运动它很多地方都不太成熟。首先这个机会很偶然，谁也没想到胡耀邦会逝世。而且在这之前我们整个这个，就是中国人民，经历了思 想很混乱，没有信念，没有理想这么一个阶段。这次整个的运动是学生和人民天然的一种民主意识的一种大暴露，知识界和理论界就远远的落后在这个之外。 他们没有给这个运动提供任何一套成形的理论。而且我想这次最伟大的一个胜利就在于人们利益自发的一个大的展示。我相信天然的东西，我不相信现成的 理论，我对理论、名人、权威没有迷信感，我不知道这样好还是不好，但我就是这样的人。
问：下一步呢？
下一步作为我个人，我愿意求生下去。广场上的同学，我想只能是坚持到底，等待政府狗急跳墙的时候血洗。
不过我相信一次大的革命很快就要到来的，要是他敢采取下策的话，即使不敢采取下策，保留一些火种和力量，在下一次革命中我们一定会站出来。我虽然对政治没 有兴趣，但我只要有良心，在下一次运动开始的时候，我想我还会再站出来，如果我还活着的话。
我想最终的就是推翻这个没有人性的、不再代表人民利益的反动的政府，而建立一个人民自由的政府，而让中华人民真正地站起来，让一个人民的共和国真正地诞 生。
问：对改革现代化的方式怎么样看？
我没有说，但是我觉得这样的改革不对头，因为它扶起来的不是人民，而是那些有权势的那些人。这种改革虽然带来一些表面上的经济繁荣，但实际上把广大人民、 广大知识分子都推上了一种没有希望，没有奔头的那种。我接触了各个层次的人，有些即使是得利者，如个体户，有些什么财团、企业家，还有那个很精明的学生， 还有一些工人市民，都纷纷没有安全感。很多人都流到国外去。我觉得这个国家快亡了，快亡国了。到这种程度。
同学喊出了一个口号，说“人民是我们的人民，国家是我们的国家，我们不喊谁喊，我们不做谁做？”我想这是人民和同学都站起来，自己救自己的国家和民族。当 时为什么我一直，在这之前我一直很愿意科学救国。当时我参加运动的时候，也就是25号那天，在4月25日那天在筹委会，当时可能混进了便衣或什么，我们在 聊天，我说政治犯判多少年？他说以前判三年，后来判五年，现在加到七年，后来加到十七年。当时我很悲哀，我在想十七年以后我出来就四十岁了，很不甘心的 呀。
（电话铃响)
那天正好我接到国外以前一个以前很要好的朋友来信，跟我说我不赞成大家都出国留学，但是心理学到国外来学，这是一定的。我一直是很愿意通过科学救国的。我 觉得这场民主运动的最根本的胜利，不是只是为了希望，我觉得民主是保证大家的一种平等的自由的生存的权利和努力的方式，保证他们的成果得到承认，而不是被 少数人给侵吞去，让每个人劳有所得，所有人都能够很平等很自觉地建设我们的国家，建设我们的民……发扬光大我们的民族。
但是我认为最根本的，就是在民主机制建立以后，还可以有一批人通过科学来真正救我们的国家。我一直这样想，但是这次我觉得，如果是这个没有人性的政府不推 翻的话，中国人民永远不会有希望，整个民族也不会有希望。
当时我是想，虽然我想去国外留学，但是如果我们自己国家能解决自己问题，为什么要到国外去呢？为什么把我们的建设、我们的青春、我们的才华都献给国外？应 该献给我们自己的民族，因为这个民族太贫困太落后了，需要很多人为她献身，为她奋斗。（哭）可是这个国家，这种统治，这种制度让那么多的人都走了。我们接 触了各个阶层的人，都没有安全感，没有奔头，都喜欢去领到绿卡。
问：你看这你们三十号撤出来有没有一些坚定分子继续留在广场？
三十号撤离这个决议是所谓的爱国维宪各界会议决定的。他们造成了很坏的影响，当时我也在，但是我没有很明确的意识到有这么大的危害力。同时，兴奋点集中与 他们有一些人要通过这个运动树一些自己的形象，什么什么的，而且我没有坚决抵制这种东西。他们这些人决定在新闻招待会上发布，来不及再更改了。但是后来我 们一再声明，还造成很坏的影响。但是可以说肯定有人坚持下去的，因为我就想告诉大家，现在广场是我们唯一的阵地了，我们再失守这个阵地话，那么中国就要复 辟了，我想每个同学都有自己的判断。
问：你自己会继续在广场坚持吗?
我想我不会的。
问：为什么呢？
因为我跟大家不一样。我是上了黑名单的人。被这样的政府残害，不甘心。我要求生。我就这样想。我不知道会不会有人说自私什么的，但是我觉得，我的这些工 作，应该有人来接着干下去，因为这种民主运动不是一个人能干成的。这段话先不要披露，好吗？
问：你们最开始跟胡耀邦（不清）有什么关系？
这是一个借口，我想，借机。
问：四月二十六号那个社论……
四二六,二十六号社论，大家，就说社论激起大家更大的义愤，因为以前从文革一直是这样，他们希望通过什么一报两刊来一篇社论，大家热情马上就打下去，他们 这种办法来管得很有效，所以这次同样如法炮制，而那个新闻措辞、这个组织都很一致。
问：和文革时一样？
就是。谁在搞文革？是我们同学？人民？还是他们少数人？仅仅是因为他们掌握了舆论工具，所以我们为什么要求对话？也就是希望能够把这个人民的思想传播开 来，他们绝对不会给这种机会的。（叹气）
问：你对外国报章、外国朋友有什么话？国外的。
国外的，我刚才已经说了，我就希望，我想，我以前曾经听到种种传说，说我们再坚持两天，戒严令还不撤除的话，那么布什就讲对邓小平的政府不予承认（笑）还 说中国的外交力量，他们就不再承认这个政府。当时我们还曾报过幻想，认为通过外界舆论，能够促使我们的内部得到一些成果，但是今天我跟你讲，我觉得不对， 可能政府大部份，他们有利益上的一些要求，他们在这方面不会这样的。但是我呼吁全世界的、有正义感的，良心，我不知在国外有没有这个字眼，他们如果能站起 来，他们如果能分清是非，而且共同支持中国作为这样落后国家的这些很弱的，赤手空拳的学生和人民，他们这种民主救亡运动，通过他们的行动。政府现在已经不 要脸了，不怕舆论，不怕流血，什么都不怕了。当是如果全世界人民都抵制它，不再承认你这个政府，不再承认你们这一小撮，那么我想对中国人民应该是很大的支 援。
问：我相信，国外的人民，老百姓一定很支持你们，可是我们的政府也不一定好。
我想是。
问：不要要求太高，因为政府是政府，我们的美国政府也不怎么好，美国政府不是人人都相信，站在你们这一边。因为我们美国和英国朋友都是非常非常崇拜你 们的。（不清）而且我相信你们学生（不清）伟大成果，这算不了什么。
这种，我觉得太客气了，用中国话来讲。我们在这之前，因为我们对出国报有幻想。我们的同学对我们讲，不要以为到了美国就是一个天国，不是的。到了那边 华人很多的地方，中国人的孽根性又表现出来，他们又会互相的勾心斗角，不团结。我现在就特别想说，就说你们在国外有很好的，自由的，比中国好得多的自由民 主的机会，你们千万不要再这样，再这样残杀，首先在国外的中国人，华人要团结起来。我希望他们能够这样，因为这么多的孩子，他们在用生命来争取。你们那些 没有遭到生命危险的人，应该来做一些工作，至少消除一些隔阂和私虑，不要再孤立，为这个民族考虑考虑。十一亿中国人民不能都亡。（哭）
http://www.tsquare.tv/film/lawsuit-documents.html
These web pages are the sole responsibility of the
Long Bow Group, and are in no way affiliated with or sponsored by
Jenzabar, Inc.
Read a summary of their lawsuit against the Long Bow Group, and view an online appeal for support.
Below are the case filings from the suit.
Related pages: About Chai Ling and Jenzabar, Inc. | Jenzabar and Long Bow Group Correspondence, Feb.-April 2007
These legal filings are part of the public record. They are presented here in the interests of full disclosure and historical accuracy.
1. Complaint - May 14, 2007 (PDF)
2. Motion to Dismiss - October 2, 2007 (PDF)
2a. Defendant Long Bow Group Inc.'s Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (PDF)3. Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Long Bow Group, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss - Feb. 20, 2008 (PDF)
2b. Exhibits A and B to Motion to Dismiss (PDF)
4. Defendant Long Bow Group Inc.'s Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Motion to Dismiss - March 14, 2008 (PDF)
5. Decision on Motion to Dismiss - August 5, 2008 (PDF)
6. Answer of Defendant Long Bow Group, Inc. - April 23, 2009 (PDF)
http://www.tsquare.tv/film/jenzabar_letters_2007.html
Update, 2009: After the final letter from the Long Bow Group to Jenzabar, dated April 11, 2007, Jenzabar, Inc., its CEO Robert Maginn, Jr., and its President Chai Ling, filed suit in Boston against the Long Bow Group, claiming defamation and trademark infringement. Click on the following links to read a summary of the lawsuit and an online appeal for support.
In February 2007, Jenzabar, Inc. sent the Long Bow Group the following letter concerning our website. [Below are copies of our first reply, a second letter from Jenzabar, and our subsequent reply.]
Jamison J. Barr, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel
(617) 492-9099 ext. 269
jamiso...@jenzabar.net
February 9, 2007
Attention: President
Long Bow Group, Inc.
55 Newton Street
Brookline, MA 02445
Re: www.tsquare.tv
Dear Sir or Madam:
I represent Jenzabar, Inc. ("Jenzabar") as its Assistant
General Counsel and am writing about the Web pages you maintain at
http://www.tsquare.tv/film/jenzabar.html,
http://www.tsquare.tv/film/american
dream.html and
http://www.tsquare.tv/film/forbes.html
(the "Web pages").
These Web pages make and publish numerous false and defamatory
statements regarding Jenzabar, its current Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Robert A. Maginn, Jr. and its founder, President and Chief
Operating Officer, Ms. Ling Chai.
Specifically, your Web pages republish statements to the effect that
"five former executives have sued Jenzabar, including the former chief
financial officer, who accused Chai and Maginn of 'a number of
unethical, inappropriate, and/or illegal actions.'" This statement is
false, misleading, and defamatory. We are aware of four suits brought
by former executives, not five, all of whom had been terminated, and
several of whom had violated their noncompetition and confidentiality
agreements. Only one suit, brought by Joseph DiLorenzo, the former CFO
of Jenzabar, accused Ms. Chai and Mr. Maginn of illegal actions. Mr.
DiLorenzo later voluntarily dropped his claims against Ms. Chai and Mr.
Maginn without receiving any settlement payments to do so, admitted
that he had no basis for them, and issued the attached
apology,
which is on file with the court.
Regardless of what the Boston Globe or Forbes might
have published more than four years ago, it is irresponsible and
defamatory to suggest or state now, as your Web pages do, that Jenzabar
and its executives committed any illegal or inappropriate actions when
the only person who made such an accusation has now admitted that the
accusations were false and unsupported. Given the information that we
have now provided, you can no longer claim ignorance about the facts.
Your republication of these statements is defamatory, and we insist
that you remove the false and defamatory articles and statements on
your Web pages.
Your republication of defamatory statements is wrongful in itself, but
you compound this wrongdoing by repeatedly using Jenzabar's trademarks
to attract traffic to the offending Web pages. Your Web page uses
JENZABAR, JENZABAR.COM, and JENZABAR.NET, in addition to Ms. Chai's
name, as metatags, in the title of the page, and in the URL. The marks
JENZABAR and JENZABAR.COM have been registered with the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office and issued Registration Nos. 3108414 and 2557986
respectively. It's self-evident that you have designed these Web pages
and used Jenzabar's marks to maximize the prominence of your Web pages
on Internet search engines, in order to deliberately divert Internet
users who are looking for the Jenzabar Web site. This unauthorized use
of Jenzabar's federally registered marks to draw traffic to your Web
pages constitutes trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and
Massachusetts law.
Your calculated efforts to attract attention to the false and
defamatory information on your Web pages have yielded the results that
you've apparently intended: the reputations and goodwill associated
with Jenzabar and its senior executives have suffered significant
damage for which you are liable.
I applaud your organization for the critical acclaim its films have
received and strongly believe that the story of the largest nonviolent
protest in China's history must never be forgotten. However, Jenzabar
cannot and will not tolerate your organization's seemingly deliberate
efforts to smear the reputation of Jenzabar and to infringe on its
intellectual property. Accordingly, Jenzabar demands that you take the
following actions within (7) seven days of
the date of this letter:
1. Cease and desist from using JENZABAR in the URL of any Web page you own or maintain;
2. Cease and desist from using JENZABAR, JENZABAR.NET, and JENZABAR.COM in the title, metatags and html code of any Web page you own or maintain;
3. Confirm that none of the principals, employees, or agents of your Long Bow Group, Inc. have contributed any of false and defamatory information that was posted to the wikipedia.org article about Ms. Chai;
4. Cease and desist from republishing any of the false and defamatory information regarding Jenzabar and its senior executives; and
5. Add the following disclaimer to your Web pages - "This Web page is not affiliated with or sponsored by Jenzabar, Inc."
If I do not receive written confirmation within (7) seven days that you've taken these remedial actions, Jenzabar will take whatever actions it deems appropriate to protect its interests and reputation. Such actions may include initiating litigation without any further notice. This letter is sent in an effort to avoid litigation, and nothing in it should be taken as a waiver of any claims, positions, rights, or remedies that may be available to Jenzabar, all of which Jenzabar expressly reserves.
Assistant General Counsel
(Also available: PDF file of Feb. 9, 2007 letter)
Reply from the Long Bow Group, dated
February 27, 2007:
February 27, 2007
Jamison J. Barr
Jenzabar, Inc.
5 Cambridge Center
Cambridge, MA 02142
Re: Jenzabar, Inc.
Dear Jamison:
In response to your letter of February 9, 2007, please be advised that
we took your allegations very seriously and accordingly consulted with
both litigation and intellectual property counsel with respect to the
same.
Their advice to us was that neither your defamation allegations nor
your trademark infringement claims are valid.
With respect to the defamation allegations, please note that the
articles posted on our webpage were posted over three years ago, that
Long Bow is only citing articles which are a matter of public record,
that the statute of limitations in Massachusetts is limited to 3 years
and so (to the extent it had been relevant) has expired, and that the
courts have rejected the theory that the statute of limitations is
continually refreshed by the maintenance of the posting. Please further
note that the articles cited on our webpage were from respected
sources, published for informative and newsworthy purposes, and that
our references to and citations of the same were likewise published for
informative and newsworthy purposes.
That said, we were unaware of the September 22, 2006 letter from Joseph
DiLorenzo which was attached to your letter, which appears to have been
a private communication, and which purports to retract charges asserted
by Mr. DiLorenzo over 3 years earlier. Please note that the date on the
letter is over 3 years following The Boston Globe article cited on our
webpage and does not itself refute the statements in that article.
However, the letter from Mr. DiLorenzo does suggest that he no longer
believes that the allegations in the complaint he had filed (and which
were quoted, apparently accurately, by The Boston Globe) were valid.
Accordingly, we would be willing to take the following actions in order
to address your stated concern and provided that it puts this matter to
bed:
• Because the letter from Mr. DiLorenzo offers additional material
information relating to the sentence in the 2003 article from The
Boston Globe which you allege to have been defamatory, we will post a
copy of the letter on our webpage. We will also add a sentence to the
webpage indicating that Jenzabar has informed us that only 4 lawsuits
were filed rather than the 5 reported by The Boston Globe. We
understand from your letter that you are not suggesting that any other
material on our webpage was defamatory.
• We will revise certain elements of the language on the webpage to
indicate that the positions taken by the authors in the referenced
articles do not represent the opinions of all persons.
• We will add the disclaimer that you requested.
• We will forward your letter and its attachment to the authors of the
Forbes and The Boston Globe articles cited on our webpage in order to
alert them to your concerns about inaccuracies in their reporting.
With respect to the trademark violations you allege, we have been
advised by counsel that our use of the name ‘jenzabar’ in the keywords
and metadata related to the webpage is considered use for ‘referential’
purposes and accordingly is not in violation of any state, federal or
common law. In fact, please note that our use of Jenzabar’s name in the
disclaimer you have requested us to insert on the webpage constitutes a
similar ‘referential’ use.
Finally, with respect to the concerns you expressed regarding
Wikipedia’s coverage of Chai Ling, please be advised that I am not
aware of anyone at Long Bow who has contributed to Wikipedia’s entry on
Chai Ling. Furthermore, no one in this company has any knowledge about
anyone who has submitted material about Chai Ling to Wikipedia. My
understanding is that Wikipedia does offer utilities which allow you to
identify the names of the contributors to the encyclopedia and I
suggest that, to the extent your concern remains, you pursue your
concern through those utilities or with the staff of Wikipedia.
I appreciate your commendation of Long Bow’s film making efforts.
Please know that we strive very hard to maintain intellectual integrity
as well as compliance with and respect for the legal and individual
rights of the persons and companies with whom we work from time to
time. Accordingly, if your legal counsel disagrees with the opinions we
have received from our legal counsel, could you please forward to me
the grounds for their disagreement (including citations to relevant
caselaw where applicable), and we will assuredly re-examine the issues
in light of the same.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Gordon
Letter dated March 22, 2007, from
Jenzabar, Inc. to the Long Bow Group:
Jamison J. Barr, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel
(617) 492-9099 ext. 269
jamiso...@jenzabar.net
March 22, 2007
Richard Gordon
Long Bow Group, Inc.
55 Newton Street
Brookline, MA 02445
Re: www.tsquare.tv
Dear Richard:
Thank you for your letter dated February 27, 2007. I appreciated your
thoughtful response, your offer to take certain corrective actions,
your request for additional information and your willingness to
re-examine your position in light of the additional information. I do
take much comfort in your statement that the Long Bow Group ("Long
Bow") strives "very hard to maintain intellectual integrity as
well as compliance with and respect for the legal and individual rights
of the persons and companies with whom" you work with.
Because your letter is based on some misunderstandings about the facts
and the law, however, I'm taking you up on your offer to point out
these errors - having included citations to case law where
applicable - and to request that you take corrective action.
At the outset, while I appreciate that Long Bow is reproducing articles
that first appeared in other publications, that fact does not insulate
Long Bow from liability for defamation. Massachusetts courts treat
republishers of defamatory statements as the original publisher for
purposes of determining liability. See Appleby v. Daily Hampshire
Gazette, 395 Mass. 32, 36 (Mass. 1985) ("Generally speaking, the
republisher of a defamatory statement 'is subject to liability as if he
had originally published it'"). Similarly, the fact that the original
articles were from respected sources, a republisher will be liable for
defamation if it is negligent in republishing it. See Mac-Gray
Services, Inc. v. Automatic Laundry Services, Co. Inc., 2005 WL
3739853, *2 (Mass.Super. 2005), citing Reilly v. Associated Press,
59 Mass.App.Ct. 764, 769 (2003). A republisher is negligent if it knew
or should have known of certain facts extraneous to the republished
piece which would have raised doubts as to that piece's veracity. See Appleby,
395 Mass. at 40.
Here, we have provided Long Bow with documented evidence that the
allegations reported in these articles are false. First, the letter
from Mr. DiLorenzo that Jenzabar previously filed was not merely a
private communication; it was filed with the Superior Court for
Middlesex County, attached to Mr. DiLorenzo's stipulation of dismissal
(see Exhibit
1). Mr.
DiLorenzo was the former CFO of Jenzabar whose allegations were
reported in the Boston Globe article and republished on your
website. See http://www.tsquare.tv/film/american_dream.html
("Five
former executives have sued Jenzabar, including the former chief
financial officer, who accused Chai and Maginn of 'a number of
unethical, inappropriate, and/or illegal actions.'").
There were three other proceedings involving former executives, but the
article falsely and misleadingly suggests that they had merit. In one
case, John Pierce, the owner of a company that was purchased by
Jenzabar, was found liable for making misrepresentations about the
company; Jenzabar was awarded $1.75 million in an arbitration
proceeding, and Pierce was awarded nothing on his claims. I've attached
a copy of the decision for your reference (see Exhibit
2).
In another case, Mahendran Jawaharlal, who had previously been CEO of
Pierce's company, sued Jenzabar seeking to avoid his non-competition
obligations. The court threw out his claims. I've attached a copy of
the ruling (see Exhibit 3).
Following that ruling, the company was awarded a judgment in its favor.
In the last case, Dwight Wyse was sued by Jenzabar for violating his
fiduciary duties to the company. Mr. Wyse and his son then brought
counterclaims, but every one was dismissed
by the court. See the attached order (Exhibit
4). Dwight Wyse later agreed to a
settlement with Jenzabar in which he agreed to forfeit considerable
sums of money in payments that he would have received. That forfeiture
was entered in open court and is part of the official court docket.
In view of this information, it is irresponsible and defamatory for
your website to republish statements that Chai and Maginn were sued for
allegedly committing "a number of illegal actions" without also stating
that those allegations were later admitted to be false. It is similarly
irresponsible and defamatory for your website to publish statements
about lawsuits against Jenzabar, even suggesting that the claims had
some truth, when a simple review of the public docket of the state and
federal courts would show that all of the claims against Jenzabar were
baseless. Regardless of what Long Bow might have known when it first
republished the statements, it can no longer claim ignorance of their
falsity.
Second, we've investigated your statute of limitations argument, and it
fails on the facts.We have been able to determine, and have documentary
evidence, that the defamatory statements that Long Bow republished on
its website were posted on May 14, 2004. When a defendant has
republished defamatory statements, a new cause of action for libel
accrues for republications from the date of the
republication. See Vondra v. Crown Publ'g Co.,
2002 WL 31379948, *4 (Mass.Super. 2002); see also Flynn v.
Associated Press, 401 Mass. 776, 780 n.5 ("Any future
republication of the false statements complained of in this action
could form the basis for a new cause of action against the
republisher."). Consequently, the statute of limitations has not yet
expired.
Finally, as to the use of Jenzabar's name as a metatag, there are
countless cases - including cases in the District of Massachusetts -
that hold that the use of another's trademark in a metatag creates
initial interest confusion. See, for instance, Eli Lilly & Co.
v. Natural Answers, Inc., 233 F.3d 456, 464 (7th Cir. 2000)
("'[u]sing another's trademark in one's metatags is much like posting a
sign with another's trademark in front of one's store.' As such, it is
significant evidence of intent to confuse and mislead."); accord
Australian Gold, Inc. v, Hatfield, 2005 WL 3739862 (10th Cir. Feb.
7, 2006); Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast
Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999); Shainin
II, LLC v. Allen, 2006 WL 1319405 (W.D. Wash. May 15, 2006)
(metatag use supports preliminary injunction); Tdata Inc. v.
Aircraft Technical Publishers, 2006 WL 181991 (S.D. Ohio Jan 23,
2006); Full House Productions, Inc. v. Showcase Productions, Inc.,
2005 WL 3237729 (ND. Ill. Nov 30, 2005); Victoria's Secret Stores
v. Artco Equip. Co., 194 F.Supp.2d 704, 725 (S.D. Ohio 2002); J.K.
Harris & Co. v. Kassel, 62 U.S.P.Q.2d 1926 (N.D. Cal. 2002); Aztar
Corp. v. MGM Casino, 59 U.S.P.Q.2d 1460 (E.D. Va. 2001); New
York State Soc. of Certified Public Accountants v. Eric Louis Assoc.,
Inc., 79 F. Supp.2d 331, 341 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); Niton Corp. v.
Radiation Monitoring Devices, Inc., 27 F.Supp.2d 102 (D. Mass.
1998). These courts have recognized that consumers who use a mark as a
search term to look for a company experience confusion when their
search results include web sites not sponsored by the owner of the
mark. Brookfield Communications, 174 F.3d. at 1045; Playboy
Enterp., Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 55 F.Supp.2d 1070,
1083 (C.D. Cal. 1999); Key3 Media Events, Inc. v. Convention
Connection, Inc., 2002 WL 385546 (D. Nev. Jan. 25, 2002). There is
no exception for "referential" uses, and, in any event, your website's
use of Jenzabar's registered trademark in its metatags is plainly
intended to divert traffic to your site, to more widely disseminate the
defamatory information I've identified above. This is a bad faith,
infringing use, and it is also an unfair and deceptive trade practice.
Because of this, more is required of Long Bow to put "this matter to
bed," and Jenzabar must insist that Long Bow takes the following
actions immediately:
• Remove the name "Jenzabar" from any all domains used by your website;
• Remove the name "Jenzabar," "Jenzabar.net" and "Jenzabar.com" from
the source code of your website;
• Remove all of the false and defamatory information identified in this
letter, including but not limited to the statement that "Five former
executives have sued Jenzabar, including the former chief financial
officer, who accused Chai and Maginn of 'a number of unethical,
inappropriate, and/or illegal actions.'"; and
• Add the following disclaimer - "This website is not in any way
affiliated with Jenzabar, Inc."
Accordingly, please confirm by no later than March 30th, 2007
that you've taken these remedial actions. If I don't hear from you by
then, Jenzabar will be forced to start initiating legal proceedings
without any further notice. Given your stated commitment to integrity
and willingness to re-examine your position, I am confident however
that, after you've reviewed the information (both the law and facts)
provided and discussed them with your legal counsel, you will take the
actions listed above.
Please note this letter is sent in an effort to avoid litigation, and
nothing in it should be taken as a waiver of any claims, positions,
rights, or remedies that may be available to Jenzabar, all of which
Jenzabar expressly reserves.
Assistant General Counsel
(Also available: PDF file of March 22, 2007 letter.)
Reply from the Long Bow Group, dated April 11, 2007:
April 11, 2007
Jamison J. Barr
Jenzabar, Inc.
800 Boylston St.
Prudential Center, 35th Floor
Boston, MA 02199
Dear Jamison:
In response to your letter dated March 22, 2007, please be advised that
we asked our counsel to make a thorough examination of the information
you provided. Our understanding continues to be that neither Jenzabar's
defamation allegations nor Jenzabar’s trademark infringement claims are
valid.
That said, let me make two preliminary points. First, as I'm sure you
know, truth is a defense against a defamation charge. The statement on
the web site with which you take issue is, in fact, truthfully
reporting that a Boston Globe article was published in 2003, which
itself truthfully stated that lawsuits were filed, quotes accurately
from Mr. DiLorenzo's complaint, and even says that the defendant denied
the claims. To the extent that the Boston Globe article made an error
on the number of executives involved in the action, that is hardly
defamatory. As you know, not every false statement rises to the level
of defamation. As to the rest of the article quote, it seems to be
opinion at worst, truthful fact at best. Nonetheless, we are willing to
clearly indicate on our website that Jenzabar has recently contested
the accuracy of certain limited statements in the Boston Globe article
and we will also post your letters to us which detail your concerns.
Second, I believe there has been some confusion around Jenzabar's claim
of trademark violation. Specifically, the trademark cases you cite bear
on situations where the intent of the user was to cause market
confusion. In this case, there is no issue of market confusion; the use
of the name 'jenzabar' is, in fact, solely for referential purposes and
such use does not constitute a trademark violation. The website is
identified as an historical website focusing on the 1989 Tiananmen
Square demonstrations and the feature documentary "The Gate of Heavenly
Peace." The copyright is explicitly held by the Long Bow Group, a
non-profit educational corporation founded in 1982. Long Bow Group is
not in the same (or even in a related) area of business as Jenzabar,
and no visitor to our website would reasonably believe the website to
be sponsored by or affiliated with Jenzabar. Please also know that your
suggestion that there has been any intent on the part of Long Bow to
defame your client is inaccurate, unfounded, and, quite frankly,
inappropriate. As you know, the website contains information relating
to many of the central characters in the film. The information provided
with respect to Jenzabar is offered only because the company is so
closely linked with Chai Ling, who by her own statements identifies
herself as an important and controversial participant in the Tiananmen
protests. Nonetheless, we are willing to add the following language to
the webpage about Jenzabar: "These web pages are the sole
responsibility of the Long Bow Group, and are in no way affiliated with
or sponsored by Jenzabar, Inc."
Finally, the Long Bow Group remains committed to taking those actions
which are both legally and ethically appropriate; but we are troubled
by what seems a clear effort on Jenzabar's part to suppress our first
amendment rights, censor the historical record, intimidate us with
charges which are brought years after the fact, and which have been
asserted in a hostile and threatening manner on unsupportable legal
grounds.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Gordon
(Also available: PDF file of April 11, 2007 letter)
Return to excerpts
page.
This web page is the sole responsibility of the Long Bow Group, and is
in no way affiliated with or sponsored by Jenzabar, Inc.