have denounced the film and its directors as loudly as the Beijing government. The filmmakers, however, are not the first or the only ones to hold the argument that the polarizing approach of both sides made the tragedy inevitable. Many scholars, observing the divisions within the student leadership as well as in the government, have formed opinions similar to that of the filmmakers…. One of [Tang] Tsou’s findings [in Twentieth-Century Chinese Politics: From the Perspective of Macro-History and Micro-Mechanism Analysis, Hong Kong, 1994] is that the kind of two-sided confrontation in the spring of 1989 is nothing new; it is deeply rooted in the traditions of Chinese political culture. Tsou’s arguments are convincing in light of Chai Ling’s behavior. Her ‘binary’ approach and intolerant attitude of ‘if you are not with me, you are against me’ is well documented in the film... And it becomes clearer in the debate over the film, when she attacked the filmmakers as co-conspirators of the Beijing regime.” Such an attitude – the "'binary' approach and intolerant attitude" – persisted years after the film had been completed. In 2007, Chai Ling, her husband Robert Maginn (a former partner at Bain, the CEO of Jenzabar, and chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party), and their company, Jenzabar, sued the filmmakers over their website (www.tsquare.tv), accusing them of being "Motivated by ill-will, their sympathy for officials in the Communist government of China, and a desire to discredit Chai...." In a New Yorker article about Chai Ling and the lawsuit, Evan Osnos noted, "For the record, to anyone with knowledge of the film, the notion that it is sympathetic to the Chinese government is laughable..." Public Citizen – a consumer advocacy group whose litigating arm focuses on cases involving consumer rights, separation of powers, open government, and the First Amendment, among others – offered to represent the filmmakers pro bono; the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School wrote an Amicus Curiae brief. Although the lawsuit was dismissed by a Massachusetts court in December 2010, Jenzabar chose to appeal this decision. It was upheld by the Massachusetts Appeals Court in October 2012, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts declined further review. A motion for attorney fees by the Long Bow Group, on the other hand, was granted, with the judge stating that Jenzabar had "subjected Long Bow to protracted and costly litigation not to protect