Scary Movie Alert

[shereads]

I'm almost sorry I watched the pirated bits and spoiled the surprise ending. When will people like this David Bossie character realize that calling for censorship of a book or film generates more publicity than the distributors could afford?

From salon.com:

~ ~ ~

The right wing is going all out to stop "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- but it's not working.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By John Gorenfeld



June 23, 2004 _|_ They're back! OK, the "vast right-wing conspiracy" Hillary Clinton warned about never really went away. But they've found new purpose in the campaign to stop the distribution of "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore's latest documentary. And just as the energetic conservative elves succeeded in making Bill Clinton ever more popular with the American public, so do they seem to be driving up public interest in Moore's film, which is expected to have the biggest opening for a documentary film ever, in a scheduled 888 theaters.

The convergence between the anti-Clinton and anti-Moore movements is personified by the tireless David Bossie, whose Citizens United made headlines savaging the president in the late 1990s. It's been a big week for Bossie and Citizens United. First they were busy producing anti-Clinton ads to run during the former president's star turn Sunday night on "60 Minutes," while Bossie was scurrying to cable studios to denounce the memoir "My Life" and promote his new book, "Intelligence Failure: How Clinton's National Security Policy Set the Stage for 9/11." Then Bossie scheduled a Wednesday press event in front of the Federal Election Commission, where he will demand that the commission take some sort of unspecified action to regulate the screening of "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- presumably because of the anti-Bush documentary's power to influence the coming presidential election. "Documents will be hand delivered to several government agencies immediately following the media briefing," the group's press release soberly states.

Anyone still wondering whether "Fahrenheit 9/11" has the far right squirming about the documentary's possible effect on the November presidential election?

 

[rgraham666]

Have you ever noticed that fanatics are all in favour of free speech right up to the moment some one says something they disagree with?

 

[shereads]

Have you ever noticed that fanatics are all in favour of free speech right up to the moment some one says something they disagree with?

I'm not sure you can say that.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I am wondering if we will ever encounter a statue of limitations which will terminate the passing of the blame for new catastrophes encountered by the Bush government onto Bill Clinton?

 

[champagne1982]

I am wondering if we will ever encounter a statue of limitations which will terminate the passing of the blame for new catastrophes encountered by the Bush government onto Bill Clinton?

http://www.kasbah.com/images/guides/usa/usa-new-york-nyc-statue-of-liberty-01a.jpg
Your statue ma'am

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Then Bossie scheduled a Wednesday press event in front of the Federal Election Commission, where he will demand that the commission take some sort of unspecified action to regulate the screening of "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- presumably because of the anti-Bush documentary's power to influence the coming presidential election.

I find that an interesting angle. It might possibly have some legal merit to it. There's all kinds of laws on the books concerning things that influence voting. In my state you can't put any campaign signs within a certain distance of a polling place. Workers for a candidate can't electioneer within a certain distance of a polling place. After the clusterfuck of 2000 the media said that they will change how they report election results and not give any firm numbers or declare a winner until after the polls close.

There is the law now that a candidate must appear in any ad on their behalf and say that they approve of the message.

Bossies angle will raise some legal questions. I don't know if it will ever gain any merit, but it will make the legal pundits stop and think.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Your statue ma'am

God bless MS Word's spell-checker and its pointy little head!'

Edited to add:

Freshly-passed, retroactive legislation:You can’t put any facts within 2000 miles of a potential voter’s view within five years of an election?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Todays followup to the story. It seems that Farenheit 9-11 won't be the only movie affected if the FEC rules that these movies to constitute politicing.

The Hill

 

[Liar]

With that thread title, I thought the Wayans bros were at it again.

Phew.

 

[Xelebes]

With that thread title, I thought the Wayans bros were at it again.

Phew.

Really? Scary Movie 5? Hot dawg!

 

[shereads]

Todays followup to the story. It seems that Farenheit 9-11 won't be the only movie affected if the FEC rules that these movies to constitute politicing.

The Hill

Yes, I saw this earlier in Wash. Post. It looks as if Bush might reap ultimate benefit from campaign finance reform, after all. His "Pioneers" program is the most efficient fund-raising machine in history, and the McCain-Feingold bill can't touch it. What it can do is be applied to movie advertisements that mention the name of a candidate and therefore qualify as a violation of campaign finance laws for some reason that I'm not sure I understand.

Amazing. They can say anything they want in their campaign commercials, for which Bush/Cheney have a bottomless pit of funding. But let a third party create a movie exposing one of them as the Spawn of Satan, and the opponent gets demerits.

My head hurts. Is the world tilted, or what?

 

[shereads]

Maybe they can alter the commercials to put a Smiley Face on Bush's head, bleep out his name wherever it's mentioned, and just run the daylights out of the commercial. Bush who?

 

[rgraham666]

It seems to me that any law they use to whack Moore could also be used to whack Limbaugh, Coulter or Frum.

Laws are like any weapon. The weapon can't actually hurt anyone, until someone pulls the trigger. Then it hurts who ever happens to be standing down range.

 

[shereads]

It seems to me that any law they use to whack Moore could also be used to whack Limbaugh, Coulter or Frum.

Laws are like any weapon. The weapon can't actually hurt anyone, until someone pulls the trigger. Then it hurts who ever happens to be standing down range.

Bossie wants the FCC to define the movie itself as a "2 hour commercial," which would be a bit sticky considering that people are paying to see it. If the FCC sticks to a strict interpretation of McCain-Feingold and determines that only the commercial has to stop after the Republican convention, but the movie can go on without promotions that mention Bush, then Rush, Coulter et al won't have anything to worry about regarding their programs - only the advertising for their programs. Locally, there's a radio talk station that features Rush on its billboards, but I'm not aware of any advertising that's necessary to get the existing dittoheads to listen to their monkey.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Farenheit 9/11 opens tomorrow, June 26th. By July 30th, I doubt that there will be much need to run commercials promoting it.

By September, Moore could be advertising the DVD of "this Year's Cannes Film Festival award winning documentary by filmmaker Michael Moore, available at your neighbourhood Video Store.

If I can figure a way around it, never fear that Moore can work out a dozen better ones.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

...and just WHY should you be forbidden to tell the truth just because it's election year???

 

[rgraham666]

...and just WHY should you be forbidden to tell the truth just because it's election year???

Because then the wrong person might become President.

Next thing you know fairness, wisdom and empathy woud be breaking out all over and then where would we be?

In a democracy! That's what! The horror, the horror.

 

[shereads]

...and just WHY should you be forbidden to tell the truth just because it's election year???

Ironically, this is possible because of the passage of a bill that GWB was adamantly against, which attempted to do something about the fact that our government is run by people who have sold favors in exchange for contributions to their political campaigns.

McCain, a Republican, and Feingold, a Democrat pushed it through. By the time the bill passed, it had been so weakened and watered down that it's nearly useless, and it does nothing at all to stop the party of the rich from getting all the funds they need - $220 million for GWB, last I heard.

The McCain-Feingold Act attempts to rein in the abuse of so-called "soft money," which is money that is technically not spent by the candidate but by some third party who just happens to be against his opponent. Soft money is the means by which candidates have gotten around limits on what each donor can donate directly to their campaigns.

I'm not sure of the specifics, but the act will prohibit any advertising that's paid for by a corporation and mentions a political candidate by name, beginning on date X. (Don't know how they arrive at the date.)

The law will probably not survive a court test and it does nothing to solve the real problem: no candidate should be able to accept a nickle in donations, and we shouldn't be electing people based on how many tv commercials they can afford. Public funding of campaigns, and campaigns consisting of information and public debates, is the only way to assure that no candidate, once elected, owes anybody a favor or will need one from them in the future.