Democrats Assault on Free Speech

carpro · Sep 8, 2006

Daisy said:

Yeah, but Bush was "slandered" with actual news footage while ABC is presenting a "fictionalization." Imagine if Moore had made up quotes and got an actor to portray Bush as saying things he didn't....somehow I doubt you'd've found that amusing.
Click to expand...

Excuses. Excuses.

Get in line with the Kool-aide drinkers.

Bottom line is slander of conservatives by liberals is explainable and excusable while poetic license in a movie that is not favorable to liberals or conservatives either one, is somehow a breech of broadcast licenses and not to be tolerated.

Liberals talk a good game, but when it comes to the first amendment, only free speech that slanders conservatives is Constitutional.

But you can probably rest easy. ABC will fold like a house of cards.

Revmitchell · Sep 8, 2006

Its called spin.

Daisy · Sep 8, 2006

carpro said:

Excuses. Excuses.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not the one scrambling to excuse lies disguised as "fictionalization".

c said:

Get in line with the Kool-aide drinkers.
Click to expand...

Jim Jones' or Ken Kesey's?

c said:

Bottom line is slander of conservatives by liberals is explainable and excusable...
Click to expand...

As factual.

c said:

... while poetic license in a movie ...
Click to expand...

Made-up lies is "poetic license" now? Heh, good one!

c said:

that is not favorable to liberals or conservatives either one, is somehow a breech of broadcast licenses and not to be tolerated.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that ABC's broadcast license was threatened?

c said:

Liberals talk a good game, but when it comes to the first amendment, only free speech that slanders conservatives is Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Not above a bit of poetic license yerself, eh?

c said:

But you can probably rest easy. ABC will fold like a house of cards.
Click to expand...

They (or whichever channel it was) didn't air the Reagan movie, did they?

Hope of Glory · Sep 8, 2006

Actual footage of some of Clinton's antics would only be able to be shown in adult cinemas...

I find it interesting that F 9-11 was not attacked by threatening suspension of licenses, etc., as it was easily dismissable as a piece of made-up propaganda, except by those who wanted it to be true.

But, when this comes out, the dems attack it and threaten suspension of broadcast licenses... Perhaps because it is more believable?

carpro · Sep 8, 2006

Daisy said:

They (or whichever channel it was) didn't air the Reagan movie, did they?
Click to expand...

CBS

They showed it in its entirety on free cable TV.

They didn't just put words in Reagans mouth like this movie is alledged to do. They depicted him as something he was not by altering his basic character. Something that is not alledged about this movie. Reagan was also unable to refute the mischaracterizations himself. Nothing like kicking a conservative while he's down to make a liberal's day.

And yes, reminding ABC (which ,as a network, I personally despise) of their broadcast license obligations is a threat. A veiled threat, but a threat nevertheless.

Daisy · Sep 8, 2006

carpro said:

CBS

They showed it in its entirety on free cable TV.
Click to expand...

Showtime is free in your area? It's premium here.

c said:

They didn't just put words in Reagans mouth like this movie is alledged to do.
Click to expand...

It's not just words. Richard Ben-Veniste: "The mischaracterizations tended to support the notion that the president [Clinton] was not attentive to anti-terrorism concerns. That was the opposite from what the 9/11 commission found."

That's more than just words.

c said:

They depicted him as something he was not by altering his basic character.
Click to expand...

How is that different from here?

c said:

Something that is not alledged about this movie.
Click to expand...

That is alleged about this movie.

c said:

Reagan was also unable to refute the mischaracterizations himself.
Click to expand...

True enough.

c said:

Nothing like kicking a conservative while he's down to make a liberal's day.
Click to expand...

Aw you and your snarky poetic licenses!

c said:

And yes, reminding ABC (which ,as a network, I personally despise) of their broadcast license obligations is a threat. A veiled threat, but a threat nevertheless.
Click to expand...

Veiled threat? That is to say, no real threat.

Revmitchell · Sep 8, 2006

It is a threat. it is a call for it to happen and it is hypocritical.

Bro. Curtis · Sep 8, 2006

This is strong-arm censorship. Daisy, I think you should at least admit that.

Daisy · Sep 8, 2006

Bro. Curtis said:

This is strong-arm censorship. Daisy, I think you should at least admit that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I went back and read the portion of the letter that was posted on page 1 of this thread (I had skipped over it before) - you all are right, it is a threat.

The Democrats are finally fighting back against lies and distortions by the so-called liberal media. Good for them. It's about time they stood up for themselves.

carpro · Sep 8, 2006

Daisy said:

Yeah, I went back and read the portion of the letter that was posted on page 1 of this thread (I had skipped over it before) - you all are right, it is a threat.
Click to expand...

Daisy, are you really telling us that you had not read what we were discussing?

I would have thought that, by your usual parsing rebuttals, you had at least read the subject matter.

Daisy · Sep 8, 2006

carpro said:

Daisy, are you really telling us that you had not read what we were discussing?
Click to expand...

Yes - I had skimmed over that part.

c said:

I would have thought that, by your usual parsing rebuttals, you had at least read the subject matter.
Click to expand...

You would have been wrong. Sometimes the tedium of the longer posts are too much even for me.

carpro · Sep 8, 2006

The New York Slimes wades in:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003118768

NYT' Calls Controversial 9/11 Movie Evenhanded, Others Disagree

By E&P Staff

Published: September 07, 2006 10:00 PM ET updted 11:00 PM and Friday

NEW YORK The film-makers and network responsible for the upcoming miniseries, "The Path to 9/11," which is now under assault for its alleged conservative bias, received critical support from a perhaps unexpected quarter on Friday -- The New York Times.

The paper's TV critic, Alessandra Stanley, declares the film "fictionalized" but still evenhanded...

Here are some highlights from Stanley's review for the Times:

--"All mini-series Photoshop the facts. 'The Path to 9/11' is not a documentary, or even a docu-drama; it is a fictionalized account of what took place."

-"The first bombing of the World Trade Center happened on Bill Clinton’s watch. So did the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen. The president’s staff — and the civil servants who worked for them — witnessed the danger of Al Qaeda close up and personally. Some even lost their lives.

SNIP

--"But there is no dispute that in 2000, the destroyer Cole was attacked, Washington dithered and Mr. bin Laden’s men kept burrowing deeper and deeper into their plot to attack America on its own soil. The film ends where it began, only the morning of Sept. 11 is finally shown, with slow, elegiac music, in its full horror.

"Dramatic license was certainly taken, but blame is spread pretty evenly across the board. It’s not the inaccuracies of 'The Path to 9/11' that make ABC’s mini-series so upsetting. It’s the situation on the ground in Afghanistan now."

Stanley also states: "The Sept. 11 commission concluded that the sex scandal distracted the Clinton administration from the terrorist threat."

Democrats should stop whining and stand up for freedom of speech.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Senate democrats are in clear violation of their constitutional obligations in threatening ABC.

Daisy · Sep 8, 2006

So the NYTimes isn't exactly a friend to the Clinton adminstration - that's not news.

Here is liberal media critic Bob Somerby's assessment of Stanley's slimy review:

Stanley reviews the ABC film for the Times’ Performing Arts section. And, though she deals with the controversy throughout, it turns out that she’s never quite up to explaining what’s being alleged. Here’s her first try, in paragraph 5. This is accurate—but it’s quite vague:
STANLEY (9/8/06): ABC has been under assault by bloggers and former officials who claim the film paints an unfairly censorious portrait of the Clinton administration, with a lobbying campaign reminiscent of the one that drove CBS to cancel ''The Reagans'' biopic in 2003. (CBS's parent company, Viacom, kicked it to the cable channel Showtime.) Some kind of reaction was inevitable this time.
That’s accurate—but it’s quite vague. After all, a film can be “unfair” without including specific scenes which “contradict” (“are 180 degrees from”) the established historical record on which it’s supposed to be based. But when Stanley discusses the charges in detail, she is—surprise!—completely unable to convey the strength of the allegations. Good God! Here we see the marvelous mind of today’s High Manhattan Journalist:
STANLEY (continuing directly): All mini-series Photoshop the facts. ''The Path to 9/11'' is not a documentary, or even a docu-drama; it is a fictionalized account of what took place. It relies on the report of the Sept. 11 commission, the King James version of all Sept. 11 accounts, as well as other material and memoirs. Some scenes come straight from the writers' imaginations. Yet any depiction of those times would have to focus on those who were in charge, and by their own accounts mistakes were made.
Good God, that’s awful! According to Stanley, The Path to 9/11 isn’t a “docudrama;” it’s a “fictionalized account.” Does anyone have the slightest idea what distinction is being drawn here? (We’ll admit it—we do not.) Then: “Some scenes come straight from the writers' imaginations.” But writers can invent or imagine scenes which are nonetheless faithful to the historical record. In this case, the complaining parties have alleged something stronger; they’ve alleged that the invented scenes contradict that record. But go ahead! Search all through this lengthy piece and see if that point is ever made clear. Sadly, Stanley does what Times scribes often do; having failed to establish what is being alleged, she starts offering her worthless opinions about it. And good God! Given what has actually been alleged, the final sentence we’ve quoted above seems to suggest something like this: If some “mistakes” have been confessed, then film-makers can just dream up other mistakes too! Meanwhile, here’s the way the hapless scribe handles one scene in question:
STANLEY: The outside pressure was intense enough to persuade ABC to re-edit one of the more contested made-up scenes in the film. In the version sent to critics, it depicted C.I.A. operatives and their Afghan allies armed with guns and night-vision goggles creeping in the dark to snatch Mr. bin Laden from his compound in 1998. The men are told to stand by, in harm's way, as the C.I.A. director, George J. Tenet and the national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, cavil by videoconference. Rather than take a firm decision, Mr. Berger flips off his videophone, and Mr. Tenet aborts the mission. (Among other things, ABC agreed to excise Mr. Berger's hissy fit.)
Stanley goes on to say that “n reality, the CIA got close, but never that close;” she describes a 1998 event in which Tenet “scrapped a heavily rehearsed raid to kidnap Mr. bin Laden from his compound before it was mounted.” But she never quite explains the objection which has been lodged against this scene; she never explains that critics have claimed that Berger simply didn’t behave in this manner, at any point, in any possible bin Laden capture. Instead, she turns to Dowdian ridicule; she describes Berger having a “hissy fit” in the film, leaving open the possibility that some such “hissy fit” may have occurred, just not in the manner shown. (She’s too dumb to explain the alleged problem here—but eager to showcase her vast, cutting wit.) Later, she makes another try at explaining the charges. But this is the best she can manage:
STANLEY: Madeleine K. Albright has also objected to her portrayal, and Mr. Clarke, who is the Cassandra of Al Qaeda and one of the film's heroes, has complained about factual distortions.
Has Albright “objected to her portrayal?” Actually, she has said that the movie shows her doing things she never did. Has Clarke “complained about distortions?” Actually, he has said that scenes are 180 degrees from what happened. These claims are amazingly easy to state—unless you’re a witty New York Times star, drawn from the paper’s vast stable.

Stanley’s review is deeply inept—but Patrick Healy doesn’t do a lot better in today’s news report on this matter. In fairness, Healy comes a bit closer to cluing us in. Here’s his first—and only—attempt to say what has been alleged:
HEALY (9/8/06): Under growing pressure from Democrats and aides to former President Bill Clinton, ABC is re-evaluating and in some cases re-editing crucial scenes in its new mini-series ''The Path to 9/11'' to soften its portrait of the Clinton administration's pursuit of Osama bin Laden, according to people involved in the project.

Among the changes, ABC is altering one scene in which an actor playing Samuel R. Berger, the former national security adviser, abruptly hangs up on a C.I.A. officer during a critical moment in a military operation, according to Thomas H. Kean, a consultant on the ABC project and co-chairman of the federal Sept. 11 commission.

Mr. Berger has said that the scene is a fiction, and Mr. Kean, in an interview, said that he believed Mr. Berger was correct and that ABC was making appropriate changes.
But is ABC being asked to “soften the film’s portrait of the Clinton Admin?” Actually, ABC is being asked to remove scenes which “contradict” the record. Yes, we’re told that Berger has called one scene a “fiction” (this is Healy’s shining moment). But some such “fictions” are fairly innocuous; Healy never explains what the critics have charged—that the various scenes in dispute directly contradict the record. From this point on, Healy wanders the countryside—failing to make the charges clear. On Wednesday, McKinley explained the charges with ease. Today, two stars flounder and flail.

This morning, we marveled at the mindless way this story was treated on Fox & Friends. (Truly shocking, even to us. Is there anything Steve Doocy won’t do and say? How much could they possibly be paying him?) But Fox & Friends is for the dumbest of the dumb—and the Times is supposed to be something different. It claims to speak to the bestest and brightest—which explains why our discourse is such a wreck, why our country is in severe danger.

THIS EASY: There are major scenes in the ABC film which contradict the 9/11 report. That allegation is easy to state—except at our country’s top newspaper.

Link to Source
Click to expand...

carpro said:

Democrats should stop whining and stand up for freedom of speech.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Senate democrats are in clear violation of their constitutional obligations in threatening ABC.
Click to expand...

I don't see where the Senate Democrats have made a law prohibiting free speech. And I'm pretty sure that slander is not protected speech.

You just can't stand that the Democrats are not letting themselves be lied about.

carpro · Sep 8, 2006

Democrats are hypocrites.

In 2003, when CBS tried to smear the character of a popular ex president who was incapacitated with alzheimers, Tom Daschle had this to say about CBS showing the movie on cable:

Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle called the decision to pull the show "appalling." CBS "totally collapsed," he told National Public Radio.

Adding this to past efforts by democrats to stifle free speech gives us a picture of a party that is weak on constitutional rights. They just provide lip service to it when it's convenient.

Daisy · Sep 8, 2006

carpro said:

Democrats are hypocrites.

In 2003, when CBS tried to smear the character of a popular ex president who was incapacitated with alzheimers, Tom Daschle had this to say about CBS showing the movie on cable:

Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle called the decision to pull the show "appalling." CBS "totally collapsed," he told National Public Radio.

Adding this to past efforts by democrats to stifle free speech gives us a picture of a party that is weak on constitutional rights. They just provide lip service to it when it's convenient.
Click to expand...

How was Reagan's character smeared? I don't get Showtime (I doubt I'd've watched it anyway).

The Galatian · Sep 8, 2006

Democrats are hypocrites.

In 2003, when CBS tried to smear the character of a popular ex president who was incapacitated with alzheimers, Tom Daschle had this to say about CBS showing the movie on cable:

Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle called the decision to pull the show "appalling." CBS "totally collapsed," he told National Public Radio.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what you did. Republicans are hypocrites, too. Who wodda guessed?

You guys don't really believe in free speech. You just give it lip service when it suits your purposes.

carpro · Sep 8, 2006

Daisy said:

I don't see where the Senate Democrats have made a law prohibiting free speech. And I'm pretty sure that slander is not protected speech.
Click to expand...

Using their powers as lawmakers to intimidate ABC by threats is a clear violation of ABC's first amentment rights.

Slander is also protected speech and must be proven in a court of law, not in the minds of democrat Senators.

The Galatian · Sep 8, 2006

How was Reagan's character smeared? Supposedly they took a lot of stuff from old news reports and included it. Like Reagan's undiagnosed Alzheimer's, Iran/Contra, Abscam, the Iranian arms shipments, etc.

Awful stuff. True, but awful.

Daisy · Sep 8, 2006

The Galatian said:

How was Reagan's character smeared? Supposedly they took a lot of stuff from old news reports and included it. Like Reagan's undiagnosed Alzheimer's, Iran/Contra, Abscam, the Iranian arms shipments, etc.

Awful stuff. True, but awful.
Click to expand...

Um, if it's true, how was he smeared?

I thought Abscam targeted members of Congress.

The Galatian · Sep 8, 2006

Well, it was democrats saying it. Or at least they said stuff democrats would have agreed with.

It's not a matter of whether it's true or not; it matters whether the facts favor the democrats or the republicans.

I guess it does... :laugh:

Democrats Assault on Free Speech

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Daisy New Member

Hope of Glory New Member

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Daisy New Member

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter

Daisy New Member

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Daisy New Member

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Daisy New Member

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Daisy New Member

The Galatian Active Member

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

The Galatian Active Member

Daisy New Member

The Galatian Active Member

Useful Searches

Democrats Assault on Free Speech

carpro Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Revmitchell Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Daisy New Member

Hope of Glory New Member

carpro Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Daisy New Member

Revmitchell Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif> Site Supporter

Daisy New Member

carpro Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Daisy New Member

carpro Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Daisy New Member

carpro Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Daisy New Member

The Galatian Active Member

carpro Well-Known Member Site Supporter

The Galatian Active Member

Daisy New Member

The Galatian Active Member

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

carpro Well-Known Member
Site Supporter