Is the difference that you have to go to movie theater and pay to fahreheit 9/11 and that the mini-series is being broadcast on the public airwaves?
That is still censorship. The clintonians are just pissed cause it will show everyone how incompetent that administration was with dealing with terrorism.
ok do you beleive there are 2 standards on stuff like movies, one standard for stuff that goes over the public airwaves, and one for movies you pay to see?
No they are pissed off as you say, because it portrays events and dialog that DID NOT TAKE PLACE. Just as it would have been inappropriate to broadcast Michael Moore's documentary (no matter how factual) on broadcast TV in the months leading up to the last presidential election. It is inappropriate to broadcast this docudrama right now. The U.S. Supreme Court does recognize that there are limitations to the First Amendment when it comes to broadcast TV because the TV networks gain exclusive rights to use what are otherwise public airways. Had the ABC movie been slated to be shown in movie theaters instead of broadcast TV the fictionalized scenes would still have been objectionable; however, they would have enjoyed stronger 1st ammendement protections.
Are we suppose to believe someone who lost their law license for lying (bill clinton) and someone who was caught stealing documents from the national archive (aka sandy berger).
Not in and of themselves no because this is considered hearsay. When however, their complaints are collaborated by the 9/11 report then yes there is a problem. From what I have seen reading and watching the news, there are several scenes in the movie that run counter to what was documented in the 9/11 report or were not in the 9/11 report at all. Relying on some of the other books referenced by the movie's producers is also inappropriate if what they claim is not collaborated by other historical/factual sources as what those books claim is also hearsay unless documented evidence (e.g. admissible in court) is cited. If the shoe were on the other foot and the movie focused on the current administration's incompetence (supposed or real) handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and dramatized events without factual documentation/evidence to back up said dramatizations; you and the others cowering behind the First Amendment in this instance would be howling mad and crying fowl. This is hypocritical. I will say it again it is inappropriate and irresponsible to be producing and broadcasting ANY political docudrama that contains fictionalized or dramatized events that could and would affect a national election in the months leading up to a national election. This is not a matter of First Amendment protections. This is a mater of abusing the public airways to push (intentionally or unintentionally) a specific political agenda. Put simply this docudrama is nothing more than a five hour political campaign ad. This is not to say that broadcast TV needs to be silent about all political events. It is entirely appropriate for the media to report on and explore political issues provided said reporting is grounded in facts and not dramatized for commercial value. A 100% factual documentary (e.g. NOT docudrama) on the events that lead up to 9/11 would be appropriate. What did and did not happen under the Clinton and Bush Whitehouses should be explored. The handling of Iraq and Afghanistan should also be explored. The said documentaries, however, must also be vetted and fact checked to the Nth degree and there should be absolute certainty that every detail in said documentaries are completely accurate. This requirement for accuracy precludes the use of a docudrama to tell the story of those events. American's should not be going to the polls and voting nor forming their political opinions based on dramatizations of events that use artistic license to make a story more entertaining.
There's many differences here. I think you may have read some blogs to make you think the two are similar, but they are not similar situations at all. First, Clinton is available to rebuff any problems he sees in the film. Reagan had alzheimers (advanced stages) at the time; he was in no position to say anything about the film to defend himself. Secondly, no government intervention was involved in Reagans being pulled off the air. No FCC licenses were threatened. I've asked 4 times now. Are you people for or against government involvement in making sure TV broadcasts are fair and 100% accurate? Yes or no. It's all very simple. So. Your primary concern is that it might change votes. Not actually the free speech side of it. Got it. That's a nice reason to defend the democrats waltzing over the first amendment. Wonderful Have you seen it? Do you know if its a "political campaign ad" or are you just reading blogs and people's opinions who have seen parts of it? I'd suspect the latter. Read Medved's column at townall. He's seen the whole thing. He says Bush comes off pretty bad here too, not only Clinton. I'm curious if you'd have the same opinion if Moore's F9/11 aired on NBC instead of the theatres. And Bush/Republicans threatened NBC's license. Would you all be so quick to want to have it edited back to reality? Or would you call Bush a Fascist? Which would it be? I think the answer is apparent.
Based on your flawed logic here, we should produce NO docudramas about any dead president. Furthermore you are trying to have it two ways, you are saying that since Clinton is alive he can defend himself and his administration yet you are decrying him for demanding that factual inaccuracies be removed from this movie. You are being a hypocrite. Within the bounds laid out in Supreme Court case law, yes. The Supreme court has addressed the FCC's ability to regulate the public airways for the public good. This is why the broadcast networks are required to provide equal airtime and advertising rates to all political persuasions. This is very well laid out and is a necessity to prevent networks from promoting political agendas that support their own interests. Broadcast networks enjoy exclusive monopolies over sections of the public airways and any monopoly must be regulated to protect the interests of all. If ABC had aired this movie on one of their cable networks it would be an entirely different issue and while people might be able to complain about it the FCC would have no business getting involved because the public airways would not be involved. You had better go back and do some research to understand the responsibilities broadcast TV has towards the public trust in exchange for the exclusive privilege to use sections of the radio spectrum. Nice rhetoric but entirely flawed logic. No first amendment rights are being threatened. Nothing is preventing the production or distribution of this movie. There is nothing preventing ABC from following CBS's lead and showing this movie on one of their cable channels. Again, the Supreme Court has ruled that the FCC is allowed to regulate broadcast TV (e.g. the Janet Jackson incident). Sorry to disappoint you, but I DO NOT read political blogs or get my news from blogs. For the most part I see political blogs as drivel from self important people claiming to know things about which they know nothing. I do; however, read and watch as much news from as many legitimate and diversified news sources (including international sources) as I can. If Michael Moore's documentary was to have been aired on broadcast TV in the months leading up to the presidential election I would have expected the FCC to take the SAME actions against that movie and the network airing it. Rules and regulations MUST NOT be applied only when it is convenient; they MUST be applied evenly and consistently in order to serve the public good. Anything less would be an abuse of power. It should be noted that Michael Moore also realized this and this is one reason why he took the production and distribution route he did. By producing his documentary as an independent film producer and distributing it via movie theaters and then DVD he totally avoided the regulatory issues ABC's miniseries may very well run up against. You may not like him, but he was not stupid and did not want to be hemmed in by the regulations ABC must abide by. When it comes to a partisan or potentially partisan political documentary or docudrama an important factor to weigh is the timing of the movie. Playing either movie a week or two after the elections would not, in my opinion, compromise the network's responsibility to the public trust. I am not against this movie itself, I am against the timing of the movie while using public airways. If ABC wants to air it after the election or on one of their cable networks they would be addressing the public trust issue. Oh and by the way, I stopped watching CBS news because of their bad reporting over the phony air National Guard papers. I don't want partisan news; I want factual news and CBS failed to provide that. ==Personal disclosure== Since it matters for perspective on this debate, I personally do not believe that ANY single political party should control both the Presidency and Congress. To me it does not matter which political party controls the Whitehouse and which controls Congress as long as they are controlled by different parties, thus forcing a balance of power between ideologies. This country seems to suffer the most and there are the greatest chances for the abuse of power when one party controls everything. From my point of view, things run best when Congress is controlled by the party that does not control the Presidency. At the same time, the split in Congress needs to be close enough that the minority party can stymie things up. It is only when there is the tension created by the balance of power between ideologies that the extremes of both parties are kept at bay and the public interest is truly served.
At least you can freely say you support stomping on the first amendment for political reasons. That's nice. Others at least try to hide it. As I said, the calls of fascism are indeed pointed in the wrong direction. That's indecency (nudity). It also applies to other things. It does not apply to the free exchange of ideas. If you think nudity equates to the exchange of ideas; then I think you are the one that needs to read up a little bit. Or at least read the first amendment Actually, are the one being the hypocrit here. The reagans was NOT pulled because of FCC threats by politicians. The 9/11 will probably be pulled for that reason. I'm saying that Clinton has every opportunity to defend himself from anything in this movie but instead, the democrats deem it their responsibility to silence anyone before they ever say anything. Good to know you are supportive of this. The government cannot threaten the license of a company because it thinks the political point of view is opposed to their own. If YOU think this is a good idea; then again, you really need to rethink things. Unless you like the concept of a chilling affect on free speech that is. Again you are wrong here. By threatening the license, you are immediately creating a chilling affect on the first amendment. Once speech has to pass approval of government censors (the democrats in this instance); free speech is dead.
Hilarious. How many of you crybaby republicans screaming "censorship" and "free speech" would defend pornography?
how many of you democrats crying fascism about republicans would acknowledge this is just that. Eh, yo-yo? you are screaming fascism every day when it comes to Bush...care to point the finger in the other direction in a clear case of it? I'd defend it. Ain't nothing wrong with it, in its proper venues.
Careful there bouncy. Some of us can't stand both R's and D's. Don't lump us all into the same ball of wax. Who here would not defend porn? In it's proper venue of course.
So. You simply support the threat on free speech. But won't actually care until a law is drafted to put it into affect. Seems to be on par with your idea on finding terrorists.
Couldn't figure out who drafted up the law? I'm not sure, but I have a feeling about what party it was I don't support threatening free speech (any form of it). Unlike some hypocrites here, I think anyone should be able to say anything they want. The difference is, you only cry about dems doing this, not about fining TV shows for "inapropriate" material, etc. etc. In fact, I think you might have been one of those "outraged" nutjobs who was crying over janet jackson's nipple.
Indecency is covered under the regulations. Attempting to prohibit speech is not. Care to try again? Feel free to quote any of my "nutjob" comments on Jackson. But like the other times you seem to "remember" things I say..I don't think you'll actually come back with anything
Talk about a straw man. This is not what I said and you know it. If you want to continue the debate then debate honestly instead of political grandstanding, this is not FOX News. Otherwise I'm out of here. Again because broadcast TV networks gain EXCLUSIVE USE OF PUBLIC AIRWAYS THAT OTHERS DO NOT GET TO USE, there are Supreme Court upheld limitation on how those airways can be used from many different standpoints. These include indecency (Janet Jackson), political bias/commentary (e.g. equal time must be provided for different political views), educational content and public service requirements. THIS IS NOT CENSORSHIP this is a trade that broadcast TV MUST make in order to gain access to the use of something others are denied the use of. Without these limitations a very powerful few could abuse the power provided by these exclusive privileges to server their own nefarious objectives. One point that should be made is that I have looked through dozens of online news articles (again not blogs) and I HAVE NOT FOUND A SINGLE REFERENCE TO THE FCC THREATENING TO PULL AND ABC LICENCES OVER THE MINISERIES "PATH TO 9/11". The only references I have found to the FCC and 9/11 is in regards to potential FCC fines CBS affiliates are worried about because of profanity in CBS's 9/11 special. AGAIN THIS IS CBS, NOT ABC. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the FCC is under the control of the Executive branch, not Congress thus it is under the control and direction of President Bush and his appointees who at last check are Republicans NOT Democrats. What this means is that you are arguing your case under TWO flawed assumptions: 1) that the FCC has threatened to pull any licenses over this issue; AND 2) that the Democrats could have any influence over such an action. Talk about disingenuous hyperbole. If we are going to argue about censorship at least lets get some facts straight. Now if ABC's "Path to 9/11" did air and it was found to contain libelous errors or defamation of character (e.g. people were portrayed as doing something the DID NOT HAPPEN), then yes ABC could be rightly opening itself up to FCC actions and/or civil litigation; especially if said transgressions were of a political nature. 1) Since I can't seem to find any factual articles that support this claim, I'd like you to show some proof of your claims -- BLOGS DO NOT COUNT. It must be reported by established and well respected news sources and preferably more than one. Again I want just the facts, not political spin. 2) The FCC is under the control of a REPUBLICAN administration not the Democrats so your blaming the Democrats is doing nothing more than spreading disinformation. It should also be noted that Congress is also under the control of the Republicans so EVEN IF the Democrats wanted to do anything, the Republicans would block such actions. 3) As has been shown, while the FCC can not directly censor what is broadcast on TV it CAN regulate broadcast TV. This means that the FCC can and does mandate equal airtime/treatment of different political points of view ESPECIALLY during a campaign season.