"Path to 9/11" a free speech issue? My ass!

[AngryAmish]

I think everyone involved in the project should be rounded up, thrown in jail and their families never hear from them again. It is not a free speech issue.

[baldguy]

1. Libel isn't protected by the First Amendment.

[Jade Fox]

2. Putting words in the mouths of real people....

words that they didn't say, is not Free Speech, I agree!

[noneofmybusiness]

3. anyone who thinks its a free speech issue

ask if they mind if you go around telling people they are a paedophile.

It's just your free speech right?

[gort]

4. No, this issue is this:

That free speech is for corporations only. Fuck everyone else and fuck what the truth is. Support Disney's right to libel so that the Republicans can remain in power.

If you wan't to get really sick, you should read what that freeptard Scott Holleran wrote at Boxoffic Mojo.com:

Excerpt:

The Government Vs. Disney <>
by Scott Holleran
September 8, 2006


Free speech be damned, U.S. government officials proclaimed in a letter threatening the Walt Disney Company: take your movie off the market or risk the wrath of the state. That is the gist of the latest assault on individual rights, another advancement toward fascism.

End excerpt.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/commentary/?id=2152&p=.htm

I wonder if he supported Disney when they refused to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11?

[MADem]

5. Scott Holleran--idiot who slept through junior high civics classes NT

[nxylas]

6. A minor correction

Holleran is a Randroid, not a Freeptard.

[Brian Stevens]

7. Let me explain again

As long as goverment doesn't interfere using legislative powers, that is fine. The First amendment only applies to the congress. As part of the first line goes, "Congress shall make no law..." If this is libel, which I think it is, it is up to the courts to decide.

[AngryAmish]

8. That is why we should send the FBI after them

When we win the election there are a lot of people who should disappear into jail and never seen again.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. Oh, THAT's the way to operate a democracy!

:sarcasm:

[Brian Stevens]

22. Clear this up

I pray that you aren't making a suggestion that we should endorse the violation of the 5th amendment now, are ya?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. No, not quite.

Court decisions have held that the First Amendment covers all government action, including that of the court system and other government entities. A court may not constitutionally enjoin free speech, any more than Congress can, since courts inferior to the Supreme Court are created by Congress per Article III.

[Brian Stevens]

11. But the complaint is libel

Clinton and the rest who distain the movie can file a motion to a federal judge to put a stay on the movie (not airing it for a short time) for further investigation. Which I believe should've been done a long time ago. My rant was Harry Reid putting sanctions against ABC if they air it. That is a form of legislation and is unconstitutional.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. Oh, OK. I see what you mean.

However, it's pretty tough to get a court to enjoin the publication of anything since it's considered a prior restraint, which the courts don't like at all. Unfortunately, they might have to sue for defamation after the fact, which I hope they do. Even though they are public figures, I think the standard of actual malice has been met.

[Brian Stevens]

17. And that is the only way.

Until then watch, tape, DVR anything but the movie. The greatest protest is the ratings protest.

[onenote]

15. its the courts, not the legislature, that decides if particular speech

is defamatory. And even the courts generally will not issue a preliminary injunction restraining speech alleged to be defamatory.

[Brian Stevens]

18. FINALLY some people are on the same page

:toast:

[onenote]

13. exactly right

[Hosnon]

24. Not true. "Congress" means the entire government...so says the SCOTUS. nt

[Brian Stevens]

26. HUH???

I was talking about Reid's sanction threat was unconstitutional and that the courts decide if the movie is libelous. Thats all.

[Hosnon]

27. You said the First Amendment only applies to Congress. nt

[helderheid]

9. I sent this to my list

I received an email that had me concerned that people think that the "Path to 9/11" issue is one of freedom of speech.

Randi Rhodes of Air America Radio explains it better than I ever could, so I'm including that transcript from her show.

I also want to remind you that ABC had considered airing Fahrenheit 9/11 2 years ago but decided not to because it was too close to an election. Smell the hypocrisy. That was an actual documentary, not propaganda.

Here's Randi’s Rant 9/8/06 on Path to 9/11

(caller says he doesn’t like the idea of censorship for the film)

Randi: “Let’s get really clear on this. It’s not censorship if it’s defamatory, slanderous, or libelous, and going in they know that it is. That’s not free speech. We have rules and laws in this country that say that you cannot use the public airwaves for your own political purposes unless you paid a fee, declared who you were representing (this ad was paid for by…) and that you paid a fee to be on the public airwaves, and that it must be clearly identified as being a commercial. Can’t do it any other way.

"This is gonna be a two day commercial for the republicans using defamatory language, slander and libel, in order to make people angry at the previous administration on whose watch we were not attacked. So that should never be okay with the American people.

"Look at the Reagan thing--that was a thing about a past president and it was offensive to republicans. Now, it didn’t have to do with a national tragedy, it didn’t have to do with an attack on this nation, it was a political figure who the republicans did not like--they didn’t like the light Ronald Reagan was being shown in. So they used their free speech rights to lobby for their desire to not have it air on the public airwaves. And they were successful. It was not aired on the public airwaves. It did air on Showtime. But Showtime is a paid subscription; it’s not the public airwaves and so people had to pay to have Showtime and it aired there without commercials and that was that.

" This is on the public airwaves without commercials which means it is indeed a commercial, and it’s propaganda because they know before airing it that they got the facts wrong and it’s not about a political person--it’s about a tragedy that affected every single American. It’s quite a different thing.

"I don’t know why people can’t realize that it would be equivalent to running a movie, without commercials, on the public airwaves, saying that the Holocaust never happened, and endeavoring to “prove” that it never happened. That would never fly. "

[Mr_Spock]

12. They're going to start the civil war, aren't they?

This is some serious shit.

[Brian Stevens]

20. My nihlistic side is saying

it would be funny to see that. But doubt that would happen.

[Mr_Spock]

21. These lying weasels are REALLY starting to piss me off

I just imagine other people feeling raped by these lying fakers. It really is pushing the limits of civility.

[dogday]

16. They are all a bunch of liars and crooks...... (see below)

[ComerPerro]

23. no, but its a very good case study in what's wrong with our media

our media, nowadays, has become an outlet that produces and publishes anything, no matter how insane it sounds, because it gives lies and slander the same credibility as truth and facts, dressing it up as "one opinion".

That's why Republicans seem to dominate debate shows. They come on. shout and lie and slander, and then the moderator, rather than fact check them or call out the lies, says something like, "Well, that's a good point."

[Beelzebud]

25. Someone needs to make MIHOP movie where Bush is the villian.

Then we'll see what they have to say about free speech.

[samsingh]

28. the Dixie Chicks was a free speech issue

this is about libel, using corporate power to lie, treachery, betrayal, rewriting history.