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 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Sep 11, 2006

this is an apples-oranges comparison. farenheith was a documentary, of which i have seen very little actually contested

Google is your friend: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

on Sep 11, 2006
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.
on Sep 11, 2006
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.
on Sep 11, 2006
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.


on Sep 11, 2006
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.
on Sep 11, 2006
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.



on Sep 11, 2006
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?
on Sep 11, 2006
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 . . .
on Sep 11, 2006
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.
on Sep 11, 2006
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
on Sep 11, 2006
For a people so in love with free speech that your right to it is enshrined in the First Amendment you're terribly prone to its most prurient expressions - both politically and sexually. You use sex to sell everything from SUVs to a cure for vaginal warts, you sexualise your children to the point where it's safer and simpler to watch TV ads when the kids are home from school than it is to go looking for kiddie porn on the net; and you react with terrified outrage at the mere sight of one small, brown, not particularly attractive breast at a public occassion.

And both political parties routinely vilify everything said by any spokesperson for their opposite numbers, whether true or not, because politics in this country has nothing to do with issues or debate and everything to do with appearance, conformity, and moral purity.

In their politics and their sexuality, Americans are a deeply sick people - and that sickness has everything to do with the denial of how people actually are in favor of a grossly Romanticised and utterly unreal image of how they ought to be.

And that 'ought to be' has far more to do with a crudely religious image of 'virtue' than it has to do with anything approaching reality.

Buy that SUV; buy that cure for vaginal warts; make your children look like porn stars - it'll give you a bigger dick and women will fall at your feet and beg to suck it.

And the only thing you can find to complain about is the 'hypocrisy' of one party or another. Here's a newsflash for you: every damned one of you is as hypocritical, as sexually perverse, as politically sick, as any of those you condemn.

Perhaps that's why I love America so. And why I'll never leave.
on Sep 11, 2006
That is a threat


kay....here's the first part followed by the second part. in order to qualify as a threat, there'd have to be some sorta 'do this or you'll suffer this consequence'. there's no mention of anyone doing anything to abc or its license.

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.


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.


only one thing is being threatened here: the collective sanity of those hapless passersby who unwittingly subject themselves to your ridiculous braying.
on Sep 12, 2006
The primary problem with Free Speech is that it always seems to cost someone something. Maybe we need a new, more realisable ideal.....something along the lines of "Discounted Speech" perhaps? Where you only get to say what you want to say if what you want to say is a little more yesterday than tomorrow?

only one thing is being threatened here: the collective sanity of those hapless passersby who unwittingly subject themselves to your ridiculous braying.


lmao. Thats a very funny slur. I can only hope to be put down half as well as that at some stage in the future.

on Sep 12, 2006
only one thing is being threatened here: the collective sanity of those hapless passersby who unwittingly subject themselves to your ridiculous braying.


I can see you have again lost the arguement since you resort to name calling. Well, it was fun for a couple before your resorted to your tried and true tactic.
on Sep 12, 2006
I can see you have again lost the arguement since you resort to name calling.


Well to be fair KingBee is correct. There is no threat in the text nor Url that you have quoted. There is a statement of fact. There is an expression of opinion and a request for a change in course of action but there is no suggestion of consequence in the material you presented. In order to be considered threatening either of the two blocks you've highlighted would require some sort of "therefore" or perhaps "unless" construct. In neither of these passages nor anywhere in the Url that you posted is there such a construct.
3 Pages1 2 3