US groups want Moore film banned

[nycflasher]

BBC News snip:

US conservative groups have launched a campaign to have Michael Moore's "misleading and grotesque" film Fahrenheit 9/11 banned from cinemas.

The film alleges connections between President George Bush and top Saudi families, including the Bin Ladens.

Move America Forward has begun a letter-writing campaign, while Citizens United is making TV and internet adverts which criticise Moore.

The documentary film will be shown around the US from 25 June.

More Moore:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3817993.stm

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by nycflasher
BBC News snip:

US conservative groups have launched a campaign to have Michael Moore's "misleading and grotesque" film Fahrenheit 9/11 banned from cinemas.

The film alleges connections between President George Bush and top Saudi families, including the Bin Ladens.

Move America Forward has begun a letter-writing campaign, while Citizens United is making TV and internet adverts which criticise Moore.

The documentary film will be shown around the US from 25 June.

More Moore:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3817993.stm

and the push for anti american censorship begins. things starting to look familiar to anyone? circa 1933?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
and the push for anti american censorship begins. things starting to look familiar to anyone? circa 1933?

DK how can people, excercising their first amendment right of free speech, be any more wrong than those who have a right to protest the war?

I have the right to boycott products, sponsors, etc. If I can get others to go along with me, is that not a right?

In effect it's the 'little guys' way of play George Soros.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Kathianne
DK how can people, excercising their first amendment right of free speech, be any more wrong than those who have a right to protest the war?

I have the right to boycott products, sponsors, etc. If I can get others to go along with me, is that not a right?

In effect it's the 'little guys' way of play George Soros.

boycotting is one thing, perfectly legal and well within the first amendment rights. Advocating a BAN is advocating censorship. There is a clear difference.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
boycotting is one thing, perfectly legal and well within the first amendment rights. Advocating a BAN is advocating censorship. There is a clear difference.

I don't see the difference. Now if I were to erect barriers or some such thing, that would infringe on your right or accessibility, oh yeah, arrest time.

You are not forced to join a ban I'm calling for, no matter how loud or long.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Kathianne
I don't see the difference. Now if I were to erect barriers or some such thing, that would infringe on your right or accessibility, oh yeah, arrest time.

You are not forced to join a ban I'm calling for, no matter how loud or long.

Theres a difference, you know this. If I called for an outright BAN on any GW Bush book because of (insert any reason you feel like) and to burn those already in existence, that would be censorship.

Now, boycotting would be me telling barnes and noble, waldenbooks, etc. that I'm picketing their stores telling people not to patron there because of their (insert any reason you feel like).

Banning, if successful, prevents those who haven't seen something to make up their own mind. Boycotting still leaves people with the right or ability to make the decision.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Theres a difference, you know this. If I called for an outright BAN on any GW Bush book because of (insert any reason you feel like) and to burn those already in existence, that would be censorship.

Now, boycotting would be me telling barnes and noble, waldenbooks, etc. that I'm picketing their stores telling people not to patron there because of their (insert any reason you feel like).

Banning, if successful, prevents those who haven't seen something to make up their own mind. Boycotting still leaves people with the right or ability to make the decision.

Point taken, my mistake. However we both know that there will be no ban, because that would be taken to court. So the point is moot I would think.

The CBS Reagan thing, that was a result of a boycott, though it's been spun to a ban, it was not. Pressure on a company is from threat of boycott of viewership or sponsors.

 

[nycflasher]

I wonder what about the film is deemed "misleading and grotesque" by these groups.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Point taken, my mistake. However we both know that there will be no ban, because that would be taken to court. So the point is moot I would think.

The CBS Reagan thing, that was a result of a boycott, though it's been spun to a ban, it was not. Pressure on a company is from threat of boycott of viewership or sponsors.

agreed, wholeheartedly.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I wonder what about the film is deemed "misleading and grotesque" by these groups.

you'll be able to see for yourself, provided its not banned. :

 

[Sandy73]

I wish Michael Moore as a person would be banned !!

 

[acludem]

These people consider anything they disagree with to be "misleading and grotesque".

Don't want to watch the movie? Don't watch the damn thing. Just you have the right to read whatever you want, you have the right to NOT read, watch, or listen to something as well. Exercise both rights regularly.

acludem

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
you'll be able to see for yourself, provided its not banned. :

lol, yep
I wish some of you would see the film just so we can debate it.

 

[NightTrain]

I'll be damned if one red cent of mine ever goes to line that worm's pockets.

I'll wait for the reviews to come out, I wonder if this new one is rife with lies as his Bowling 'documentary' was. There's a whole lot of people waiting to closely examine it - which, of course, is part of his marketing plan.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
and the push for anti american censorship begins. things starting to look familiar to anyone? circa 1933?

Only congress can censor people. The American people have always been able to assemble and organize and protest that which they disagree with. and the private sector is allowed to refuse the distribution of a film.

I say if you disagree with it. send a sensible letter to any theatre in the area you are planning to distribute it. Nothing very immature. no name calling. Just state you are concerned that they are lending their name to a movie that isnt accurate, state a few facts, and suggest they might be able to make more having another threater showing spiderman rather than this and sign off. and then get a bunch of friends to do the same.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I wonder what about the film is deemed "misleading and grotesque" by these groups.

Probably the out and out fantasy he puts in it and claims is fact..

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by acludem
These people consider anything they disagree with to be "misleading and grotesque".

Don't want to watch the movie? Don't watch the damn thing. Just you have the right to read whatever you want, you have the right to NOT read, watch, or listen to something as well. Exercise both rights regularly.

acludem

I dont plan to watch the movie. kind of ironic that a so called champion of free speech is upset that some conservatives are using their free speech to argue against this inappropriate movie.

 

[Bullypulpit]

As much as many here would like to deny it, the connections between Dubbyuh and the bin Laden family are a matter of public record and well known, if denied, by many. Too bad...Have a nice day

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Only congress can censor people. The American people have always been able to assemble and organize and protest that which they disagree with. and the private sector is allowed to refuse the distribution of a film.

I say if you disagree with it. send a sensible letter to any theatre in the area you are planning to distribute it. Nothing very immature. no name calling. Just state you are concerned that they are lending their name to a movie that isnt accurate, state a few facts, and suggest they might be able to make more having another threater showing spiderman rather than this and sign off. and then get a bunch of friends to do the same.

Sorry, but any move, whether public or private, to deny any and all access to information is censorship.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
I dont plan to watch the movie. kind of ironic that a so called champion of free speech is upset that some conservatives are using their free speech to argue against this inappropriate movie.

They're not arguing against it, they're trying to quash it. There is a clear difference which you are, apparently, unable to see or are willing to overlook.