The journey from there to here

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.


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Sep 10, 2006
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.
on Sep 10, 2006
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.
on Sep 10, 2006
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.
on Sep 10, 2006
Everyone is against free speech when they disagree enough with what's being said.

Except me of course.
on Sep 10, 2006
Except me of course.


Wrong! It's me.   
on Sep 10, 2006

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.

on Sep 10, 2006
Reply #5
Except me of course.


Wrong! It's me.


No, it's me and you have no right to say otherwise!
on Sep 10, 2006

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.

 

 

on Sep 11, 2006
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
on Sep 11, 2006
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.
on Sep 11, 2006
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.
on Sep 11, 2006
It seems to me that has more to do with a family issue than a political one.
on Sep 11, 2006
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.
on Sep 11, 2006
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.











on Sep 11, 2006
3 Pages1 2 3