Ok, WHICH Side is Against Free Speech, Exactly?

from JoeUser Forums

I am sick of hearing Democrats claim that Republicans are the enemies of free speech. While the Republicans certainly have done their part to limit the exercise of free speech, they hardly have a monopoly on the concept. The Democrats, however, have the added burden of hypocrisy as they make a point in condemning Republicans for doing the same thing they're doing.

For a recent example, witness the efforts to silence the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11". The push has come almost exclusively from the Democrats, who are apparently unhappy with any suggestion that Bill Clinton's administration might have dropped the ball on securing the United States in the leadup to 9/11. Yet the fateful event happened less than 9 months into President Bush's tenure, and much of the stage had been set for the terror action under Bill Clinton's administration. That's not partisanship speaking, that's fact.

While it might be true that "The Path to 9/11" is partisan (I have heard otherwise, but, not having seen the film, cannot objectively comment), it is no more so than "Fahrenheit 9/11". And while Republicans decried the Michael Moore film, there was not a concerted, organized effort to ban its showing.

It could be said that the Democrats simply fell victim to the tendency to close ranks to protect their own if the examples ended there. But they do not. In fact, one need only look to find Hillary Clinton's recent video game ban efforts to find another example of concerted efforts by prominent DNC leaders to censor free speech in the marketplace. And, of course, anyone with even a remedial knowledge of the subject matter should be well aware of the "porn rock" hearings in the mid-80's led by none other than former Veep main squeeze Tipper Gore.

I am not suggesting that the Democrats have an official policy for censorship within their party. Far from it. But I am suggesting that if they are going to be human and give in to the natural tendency to want to censor things that offend us, they should at least be honest about it and not point fingers at the other side. I, for one, hope that this docudrama is at some point available for viewing in its unedited state. But I also hope the DNC will stop pointing a finger at others for the same sin that infects its own rank and file.

politics
11,723 views 31 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Every political group is against the free speech of dissendents. End of story. Some are just more overt than others, but they are all - I repeat, all - against the free speech of their detractors. Nobody likes being told they're wrong.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not suggesting that the Democrats have an official policy for censorship within their party


I will not paint every democrat with that broad brush. But it is apparent, in words and deeds that the leadership and the controlling interest of the democrat party do have that policy.
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I will not paint every democrat with that broad brush. But it is apparent, in words and deeds that the leadership and the controlling interest of the democrat party do have that policy.


I will not paint every republican with that broad brush. But it is apparent, in words and deeds that the leadership and the controlling interest of the democrat party do have that policy. Same can be said of the GOP, buddy. They're just as bad.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Everyone is against free speech when they disagree enough with what's being said.

Except me of course.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Except me of course.


Wrong! It's me.   
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

I will not paint every republican with that broad brush. But it is apparent, in words and deeds that the leadership and the controlling interest of the democrat party do have that policy. Same can be said of the GOP, buddy. They're just as bad.

I think Gideon did provide some examples.  Care to list some?  I will be glad to match you list for list.  The right boycotts, the left threatens legal action.  BIG difference.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #5
Except me of course.


Wrong! It's me.


No, it's me and you have no right to say otherwise!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

While both sides wish the other would just shut up, it is the DNC only that had taken action towards that end.  Fahrenheit 9/11 not only was defended by democrats themselves, it earned Michael Moore a place of honor at the DNC National Convention.

Apparently it's not only "ok" to accuse Prs. Bush of allowing the attacks to happen, but accusing him of collusion is honorable.  Yet just state the fact that Prs. Clinton squandered opportunities to fight terrorism and you get threats for losing your broadcast license.

It is totally off the mark to even compare the two parties when it comes to this issue.  Sure, the RNC would love it's opposition to remain silent, but they don't use the pull to exact retribution on them for speaking out.

From the heavy handed tactics of the Clinton machine to working to keep the Holy Bible out of public school libraries, the very people who made fun of the book burners are stoking the flames today.

Except for abortion, I can't think of a single Freedom of Choice the modern day DNC has championed.

 

 

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
the left threatens legal action


from a time magazine opinion piece, written by patti davis, about 'the reagans':

Finally, CBS is doing the right thing about "The Reagans." Under pressure the network has decided not to air the two-part biopic, steering it instead to the cable outlet Showtime (like CBS, owned by Viacom). But just because a far smaller audience will now see the film (Showtime draws maybe a million viewers on a top night) doesn’t make this story any more accurate. According to the screenplay for “The Reagans,” my father is a homophobic Bible-thumper who loudly insisted that his son wasn’t gay when Ron took up ballet, and who in a particularly scathing scene told my mother that AIDS patients deserved their fate. “They who live in sin shall die in sin,” the writers and producers had him say.

CBS execs say the line about AIDS victims has now been deleted. I asked Bert Fields, one of America’s best known entertainment attorneys, who is not my lawyer but is a friend, to call CBS head Les Moonves and point out how painful the line was. My mother, through her attorney Ira Revitch, also wrote to Mr. Moonves asking for its removal

WWW Link
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok KingBee, so where is the threat of legal action? Where is the threat against CBS's broadcast license?

If that's the best you got, I rest my case.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok KingBee, so where is the threat of legal action? Where is the threat against CBS's broadcast license?

If that's the best you got, I rest my case.


Ditto!

As I said, the right theatens boycotts, and the last I checked, that is legal, ethical and a right we still do have.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
It seems to me that has more to do with a family issue than a political one.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
the left threatens legal action


Yes kb and the "left" is doing "more" than threatening


Clinton's lawyers (probably representing Sandy Berger and Madelyn Allbright as well) are going to be drafting a motion for an injunction and pulling all the public figure defamation cases they can find. The big one is NY Times v. Sullivan:


Now show me where the right did that over the Reagan video. Oh I'm sorry, you can't do that can you? Because "that" never happened. You did not show any such thing with your post.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
While it might be true that "The Path to 9/11" is partisan (I have heard otherwise, but, not having seen the film, cannot objectively comment), it is no more so than "Fahrenheit 9/11". And while Republicans decried the Michael Moore film, there was not a concerted, organized effort to ban its showing.

this is an apples-oranges comparison. farenheith was a documentary, of which i have seen very little actually contested (someone took issue with a newspaper headline showing the wrong date or something and others were pissed that charleton heston's biggoted tendencies were revealed, but outside of that...not much) . but regardless, every documentary pretty much has people that nitpick a few things here and there...but documentaries are a format where evidence is shown and backed up. one may disagree with the evidence or the source, but it is out in the open, to be debated.

the path to 9/11 is a docudrama. in this format, the filmaker is supposed to be accurate about everything possible. license is given to provide dialogue where not specifically known. path to 9/11 changed events, playrs and actions and went FAR beyond any of that. the blatant innacuracies and borderline slander of the people and events.

sidenote...this movie had no less than 4 FBI "technical consultants" walk off the job because of the blatant misrepresentations. all of them independently demanded that their names not be used in any way in association with this movie. what does that tell you?

And, of course, anyone with even a remedial knowledge of the subject matter should be well aware of the "porn rock" hearings in the mid-80's led by none other than former Veep main squeeze Tipper Gore.

the 80's PMRC hearings were very "bi-partisan" and a big mistake...few will argue with that. tipper was a part of it, but hardly the "leader" or anything. also, in ccase ya didn't know, after the hearings, the grateful dead invited the gore's to a concert. after that, they attended several with their children...i met them on one occasion at a dc area show in 91-92 i believe.

The push has come almost exclusively from the Democrats,

that is simply not true. pat buchannan has pspoken out against it. several repubican senators and politicians have also.

one need only look to find Hillary Clinton's recent video game ban efforts

hillary tried to do no such thing. she was interested in keeping the game out of the hand's of children. and she's hardly alone when it comes to grand theft auto. btw, i own all of these games and agree that it is a very adult game and kids have no business playing it.

now, with that being said....let me say that this movie was just more brilliant marketing.

put the part out about bill clinton on the eve of 9/11...on a no news day sunday. then on sept. 11, no one will dare criticize it, because it's "disrespectful" on the anniversary. run the 2nd part on the 12th, have the president come on in the middle of it (the one who's being shown in a positive light in the movie) and have him scare the crap out of everyone about 'impending doom" if we don't do what the administration (you know, the only 12 people in the world who are capable of keeping the world safe and free according to them) says.

then it's wed., and while the few of us who actively talk about politics on a regular basis are squabbling about it, all the new GOP congressional ads hit the airwaves, we go into election season and the only people who remember the movie are the people who don't pay attention. and unless they catch a cable news program (which don't rate nearly as high as we who watch them think they do) they will eventually remember that movie and all it's lies as fact.

simply brilliant!

and simply disgusting, but Rove & co are shameless and probably could care less what i think. they're just lookin for their 51% to retain power and prevent any real oversight.

no, republicans and democrats alike have no corner on "censoring" things that they don't like,,,we all do that. but this is about an accurate historical record. and as evidenced by the "educational materials" the goverment tried to get into every classroom in america which were simply propoganda talking points proesented as 'facts." fortunately, at least that didn't happen and the propaganda sheets were stopped from being distributed.

this movie was n't partisan, it was propaganda. but there is no conspiracy (that would give too much credit) it's just more great marketing from a shameless group of power mongers.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
tipper was a part of it, but hardly the "leader" or anything.


Actually, she was a BIG part of it. I remember the "porn rock" hearings, and if Tipper wasn't a leader, then a bunch of her contemporaries sure were silent while she portrayed herself as such. Sorry, Sean, on this point you lose BIG.

If you read the article in context, I make it VERY clear that Republicans are not above criticism on this one.

As to "Fahrenheit 9/11" being a documentary, many of its "facts" have been exposed so many times as fiction that it would be overkill to repeat them here. As dr. said, google is your friend.

that is simply not true. pat buchannan has pspoken out against it. several repubican senators and politicians have also.


Please provide me with the link from ONE credible news source where a prominent Republican has made the legal overtures that the Clintons and the DNC have made against this miniseries, not to criticize it, but actually to CENSOR it. There's nothing wrong with the criticism, at all. It's the push to censor the film that concerns me.

hillary tried to do no such thing. she was interested in keeping the game out of the hand's of children. and she's hardly alone when it comes to grand theft auto. btw, i own all of these games and agree that it is a very adult game and kids have no business playing it.


Right. It's the "vast right wing media conspiracy" that's out to get Hil, Sean. Give me a break.

Sean, you are a reasonable and intelligent individual. It boggles my mind why you would be so blindly partisan. The fact is, BOTH parties have been equally culpable in the push to censor free speech in America. It would be wrong to let either side off the hook.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
so where is the threat of legal action? Where is the threat against CBS's broadcast license?


where is the threat of legal action against abc or its licence? and please don't cite the letter sent by sens reid, durbin, stabenow, schumer, and dorgan unless you're able to provide text other than that already released because it sure the hell don't exist there.

fact is, abc wasn't sufficiently pressured to pull its show (which--as sean pointed out--will frame the bush speech tonite); thanks to efforts of the reagan family and attorneys acting on their behalf, the same can't be said of cbs.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
where is the threat of legal action against abc or its licence?


Google is your Friend: WWW Link

Specifically this part:

Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.


Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Google is your Friend


reading is your friend...or would be if you utilized it.

where is the threat of legal action against abc or its licence? and please don't cite the letter sent by sens reid, durbin, stabenow, schumer, and dorgan unless you're able to provide text other than that already released because it sure the hell don't exist there.


nothing in the portion you've quoted comes even close to what might be construed as a threat by any reasonable person.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
reading is your friend...or would be if you utilized it.


OIC. Only what you qualify as legitimate, we can use to back up our arguements, and letters from Senators are not allowed? Sorry, you dont make the rules.

nothing in the portion you've quoted comes even close to what might be construed as a threat by any reasonable person.


It does when paired with this:

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.


Sorry you dont like my sources. But that does not make them 'a blog', or the fact that you cannot put 2 and 2 together. Stay in your denial.

maybe you should learn how to read, or at least use it.



Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
It does when paired with this:


the second part you quoted is nothing more or less than a statement of fact. there's nothing else.

perhaps you also consider your job description to be a threat? that might explain the problems you've reported having with your employers. they inform you when your work doesn't meet established standards and you feel threatened?
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am against free speech from everyone, and everyone is against my free speech.

Free speech is a great idea, but never totally occurs. It'd be a bit to anarchistic, methinks . . .
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
perhaps you also consider your job description to be a threat? that might explain the problems you've reported having with your employers. they inform you when your work doesn't meet established standards and you feel threatened?


No, as it would have to be paired with a reason. The first part was an accusation, the second the grounds for revoking the license. You asked for threats. That is a threat. Whether justified or not, no one as yet argued that point. Perhaps you should requalify what you are looking for, like an unprovoked attack or something to that effect?

But you asked for the threat. Now you have it.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally...I don't mind free speech...in fact, I'm against censorship which is why I hate the FCC...because, well they take all the flavor out of programming. I'm not saying people should go around spouting off all kinds of things 24/7...unless they want to, but on any broadcast you have to tiptoe around the words you say and I'm not a fan of that crap.

Anywho...I'll have to agree that everyone (in the government anyway) is against free speech of their opponents.

~Zoo