home

Conspiracy Theory

I missed this before, but Howie Kurtz, who often takes his cues from the right wing, talked about it this morning on CNN. The producer of the infamous "Path to 9/11" has a conspiracy theory:

"Whatever anyone may think about me or this movie, this is a bad precedent, a dangerous precedent, to allow a movie to be buried," added Nowrasteh, who received death threats even before the miniseries was broadcast last September. "Because the next time they'll go after another movie. The Bush administration may go after a movie. The next administration may go after a movie. No matter who it is, they may go after a movie. I think this town needs to stand up."

Stand up for an atrocious, unfair and inaccurate work presented as factual? Nowrasteh has an ally:

This isn't about politics, said film director Oliver Stone, but about the right of artists to have their work distributed. "This is a shame; it's censorship in the most blatant way," said Stone, who has hired Nowrasteh for several writing projects. "I'm not vouching for its accuracy -- it's a dramatization -- but it's an important work and needs to be seen."

It deserved to be scorned and was as it was a piece of fiction passed as fact. It was on ABC for 2 nights. There are a lot of "works" that were much more deserving to be seen than that "work." I think ABC should sell it back to Nowrasteh though so he can sell it through the usual right wing channels.

< Michael Mukasey May Be Named AG Monday | NORML Founder Arrested in Boston For Smoking Joint >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Who are "they"? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    Because the next time they'll go after another movie.

    What in the world is he talking about? The Tyranny of the Powerless? Why is he pretending the government was responsible?

    Jim knows (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 12:17:29 PM EST
    They're ::everywhere:: (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 12:20:03 PM EST
    Billion of 'em.

    Parent
    I love this idea... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:59:51 AM EST
    sell it back to Nowrasteh though so he can sell it through the usual right wing channels
    Especially since wingnuts seem to love being suckered so much. :-)

    DA (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 05:10:01 PM EST
    I find it interesting that you attack the film by quoting Clinton, a President that was and is a known liar.

    You then bring out the old hoary theory that freedom of speech is only free when both sides agree that the speaker is telling the truth.

    Nonsense.

    And if Clinton feels that the movie has slandered him he can certainly sue. But he's not going to. Perhaps the thought of Sandy Berger explaining why he stole from the National Archives gives him pause to consider.

    By those standards no one would ever be allowed to say anything critical of the Demo/Left.

    BTW - I didn't defend the accuracy of the movie. It is a docudrama, which is simply fact and fiction mixed together. Perhaps you are familar with F 911 and some recent articles by a disguised Army person for TNR.

    So why you would want to attack what has not been defended is curious. There is, of course, an old Southern saying that goes:

    The hit dog always barks.

    At the end of the day we still have a popular mini-series that was heavily attacked by the Demos before it was released that cost ABC a ton of money because the attacks ran off the advertisers.

    One would think that ABC would want to try and recoup some of that lost revenue by releasing the DVD. I would hope some stockholders might demand some answers.

    But everyone knows the answer. No one wants to be on the wrong side of Hillary in a business deal. The WH travel agency workers can testify to that.

    Parent

    You're barking pretty good.. (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:33:16 AM EST
    Thanks for helping out. From the LAT

    "But this is odd. It may be this is a very sensitive subject and they [ABC Studios] don't want to go through the PR nightmare again.

    Last year, a Clinton spokesman referred to the ABC enterprise as "despicable," and then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and four other Democratic senators signed a letter to Disney Chief Executive Robert A. Iger stating that if the miniseries were shown it would "deeply damage" Disney's reputation. As a result of the tumult, ABC was unable to attract advertisers for the miniseries.

    Those two paragraphs say it all.

    It's called political pressure. It's called an attempt to censor.

    Now tell us how much you support the troops. We already know how you support freedom of speech.

    Parent

    Fidlo? heh (1.00 / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:21:52 PM EST
    The more you bark, the worse you sound. Let's take a quick look.

    1. The Demos pressured ABC last year.

    2. ABC won't release the DVD, even though doing so would be profitable. (Almost zero cost.)

    3. I point out the obvious.

    4. You go nutso claiming that free speech doesn't cover criticism. Huh?? Heck, I thought that was what free speech was for.. Nobody ever objects to compliments...

    5. I finally catch on.

    6. You will defend everyone's right to agree with you.

    hehe

    Parent

    And let's not forget the recent faux outrage (none / 0) (#19)
    by kovie on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 04:31:48 PM EST
    over "Betray-Us". Like they didn't get all outraged over that and demand that anyone who criticized St. Dave should be deported as being un-American. And yet they complain about censorship, like the hypocritical pantywaists that they are who actually despise the freedom that they keep claiming to love.

    And btw, as for that MoveOn.org add, I have to say, I keep hearing it whenever the name Petraeus is mentioned now, which I think might end up being more effective in the long run than most people realized, in a subliminal sort of way.

    Parent

    If it is such an important work ... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 12:11:29 PM EST
    ... maybe it should be locked away somewhere for preservation, like other important items such as Ebola and smallpox viruses.

    So, why are you frightened?? (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 05:24:18 PM EST
    Sunlight and fresh air is very hard on most diseases I know of.

    Parent
    So then when should we expect (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kovie on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 04:14:42 PM EST
    the dramatization of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on prime time? Why are being denied our right to see this "work of art"? This is an OUTRAGE!

    What an intellectual coward Stone is in hiding behind free speech to plug this POS hit job on Clinton and paean to all things Bush.

    Odd person, that guy.

    Favorite Quote (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 09:04:37 PM EST
    "I go to Blockbuster and I see a lot of crap on the shelves," added Nowrasteh. " 'Path to 9/11' deserves to be available to people who want to see it or buy it or rent it or whatever.


    This is not a conspiracy theory.. (1.00 / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:55:11 AM EST
    No one has said a group of powerful people have met in the shadows and said... kill the DVD...
    Nope. This is what happened. And it is factual.

    Last year, a Clinton spokesman referred to the ABC enterprise as "despicable," and then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and four other Democratic senators signed a letter to Disney Chief Executive Robert A. Iger stating that if the miniseries were shown it would "deeply damage" Disney's reputation. As a result of the tumult, ABC was unable to attract advertisers for the miniseries.

    The Demo Senators were without a doubt trying to censor the movie. To keep it from being shown. That the Left, with its almost continual demand for free speech, let that slide is demonstrative that it is about politics, not free speech.

    So now it is past time that the series be released on a DVD, and it hasn't been done.

    Flash back to the quote above and consider. If you were ABC and if you, and the rest of Gollywood expected, and they do, that Hillary will be President.... would you do anything to pis* her off??

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by TomStewart on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 12:32:18 PM EST
    Jim has a knee-jerk reaction to a supposed right winger being done dirty.

     I don't know about you, but I hardly think enough people are waiting around with 30 bucks at their local Target to buy this disgrace to make it fesibale to do a release, esp witht he mood of the country. If they were, believe me, ABC and Disney would be more than willing to sell it to them.

    There are lots of recent TV movies that haven't made it to video yet, and frankly, I'm still waiting for Season one of Batman, something that would out sell Chetwynds masterpiece by millions. OMG! They've censored Batman! Why don't I see Warner's crying about 'censorship'? Poor Adam West, his masterwork censored, he now will have to turn to the right-wing media to get his hearing. He could go on Rush's show, maybe with a call-in from Burt Ward, to decry the liberal Bat-Haters in Hollywood, 'Cowed by the Cowl'! Wow. They could even make a documentary about how they can't release their series, Fox might make it a reality series! Hey, copyright by Tom Stewart, back off!

    Please, Hollywood goes where they think they will make money. If they can make big bucks sucking up to George W, they will. If they can make bucks pissing him off, they will do that too. In Hollywood it's not about politics (unless it's the blacklist), it's about Box Office, Box Office Almighty, and the bottom line rules.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 02:11:52 PM EST
    Please, Hollywood goes where they think they will make money. If they can make big bucks sucking up to George W, they will. If they can make bucks pissing him off, they will do that too. In Hollywood it's not about politics (unless it's the blacklist), it's about Box Office, Box Office Almighty, and the bottom line rules.

    Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Parent

    Thanks for proving my point (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:34:14 PM EST
    The movie is done, in the can. DVD sales are additional income.

    Why won't ABC go for it?

    Parent

    Oliver Stone agrees with me that the (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 05:17:48 PM EST
    film should be released.

    This isn't about politics, said film director Oliver Stone, but about the right of artists to have their work distributed. "This is a shame; it's censorship in the most blatant way," said Stone, who has hired Nowrasteh for several writing projects. "I'm not vouching for its accuracy -- it's a dramatization -- but it's an important work and needs to be seen."

    BTW - Your attempt at sarcasm falls flat on its face when it is considered that none of the films/series mentioned had US Senators writing attack letters to the network/producers.


    Parent

    Go ahead (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by TomStewart on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:42:43 PM EST
    release it. I'm saying that there isn't much of a market for it. Now, if you throw in Will Smith and a couple aliens, and a few topless females for the unrated version, then you might have something!

    Saying this is a free speech argument is an insult to the people whose speech is really endangered. This is a movie, paid for by people other than those who are yelling 'free speech!' (I don't believe ABC bounced their paychecks for this dreck), and not yet scheduled for release, and this is a denial of the freedom of speech? Good lord, get real.

    And oh, and saying Oliver Stone agrees with you is a good thing? Something to brag about?

    Well, then...

    Parent

    You not a Stone fan??? HTB (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 07:47:56 PM EST
    And oh, and saying Oliver Stone agrees with you is a good thing? Something to brag about?

    Yeah, it worries me too.

    But I believe that an enemy of my enemy is my friend.. ;-)

    Is there a market?? I don't know. I just think it is political pressure, not overt, that was last year.. that is keeping it off the shelves.

    Plainer.... They don't want another whipping and they don't want to pis* Hillary off.

    Parent

    My sympathies.... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 01:25:35 PM EST
    "The Lefffffffffffttttttt" (say it with really slow deep rumbling menacing tone) will definitely be the end of "civilization" as you know it.

    Ain't no doubt about it, ppj. You're not paranoid. They really are after you....

    Parent

    Stupid Left (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by TomStewart on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 04:17:36 PM EST
    Why are they always messing up this world? I mean, starting this war, tripling the debt, running down the value of the dollar, disgracing America in the eyes of the world and allowing her enemies to grow legion and...

    Wait, Reagan, Bush and Bush 2 (the Revenge) has run up 70% of the current debt, Bush and his administration gave us this war and let Bin Laden get away to continue to mock us, and Bush has alienated the world to such a degree that it will take years to rebuild trust. To say nothing of how long it will take to rebuild our army.

    Yep, dang, stupid left.

    Parent

    The "war" was necessary. (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 04:39:58 PM EST
    You know that. ppj's told you that a million times.

    If we don't bomb them over there, somewhere, anywhere, they'll swarm the beaches, overrun the land, kill everyone in their beds, and replace the constitution with Sharia Law, as soon as they smarten up enough to buy explosives to blow up an airport before they're arrested on the word of a paid FBI collaborating infiltrator. If they can get the pizza store to deliver a map of the airport. And they's hordes of 'em. Billions. Just ask AC.

    Only Rudy can save the world. Have faith.

    An' the dang stoopid left is wreckin' everthang.

    Parent

    You Forgot (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 04:52:28 PM EST
    The bedwetter breeder fantasy:

    Look at the demographics. The west is being out bred and is importing Moslems at a rate that insures the end of western culture.

    hhahhahahha

    Parent

    The west is being ::out bred::? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 04:59:19 PM EST
    Evil killer bunnies?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 05:10:54 PM EST
    Hahahaha! (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 05:28:48 PM EST
    I forgot about him. He lives in ppj's closet?

    Parent
    If you have a probem (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 07:55:52 PM EST
    try viagra...

    Funny thing about demographics, they are not good or evil, they just "are."

    Too bad you can't figure out that negative birthrates mean that immigrants, and mostly Moslem immigrants, will become the majority.

    If this was a just a secular thing it wouldn't be very important. But given the beliefs of the radical Moslems it present immense long term problems for western culture and civilization.

    Parent

    Hahahahaha. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:13:22 PM EST
    Well, see, if the government is importing Moslems at a rate that insures the end of western culture, the first question you want to ask, of course, is... exactly who is that's been running the government for the past seven years? Hmmm?

    And if they're importing Muslems at a rate that is so low that it insures the end of western culture, then it's time for a more liberal government.

    I fully agree with you that there should be vastly increased immigration from Muslim countries.

    Particularly from Iraq, since of the more than 2 million Iraqi refugees created by the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the same incompetent government that is, in your view, importing Muslems at a rate that is so low that it insures the end of western culture, only 800 have been allowed to emigrate to the U.S.

    You definitely gotta wonder why they are so scared of people who are so ecstatic at being liberated, dontcha?

    I warned you not to used your own product if you're trying to sell it, ppj. It'll do you in everytime.

    But would you listen? Noooooooooooooooooo...

    ......

    Oh, btw, Muslims don't like being called Moslems any more than redneck wingnuts like being called retarded idiots. In both cases it's considered an insult.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:29:11 PM EST
    The importation is required because there aren't enough people to keep the economy going...

    Gosh, you truly have a knowledge scope that almost exceeds the distance between your eyes.

    Parent

    And, btw (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:31:09 PM EST
    Apparently impotence is only a problem among Bush and his supporters.

    But you knew that:

    Most surprising was the personal quality of bin Laden's taunts. While Mr. bin Laden has never refrained from critiquing the policies of Messrs Bush and Cheney, he has not previously stooped to their level of innuendo and insult. In a moment of high drama, he asked, "Where is Mr. Bush hiding his interns? If there are no interns, what is the matter with him? Surely there is room enough in the Oval Office to have a roll with one little intern!"

    But Mr. bin Laden reserved his best artillery fire for Mr. Cheney. "Dick!" he exclaimed. "Why do they call you Dick?" He seemed to chortle. "Isn't it ironic? In six years of war, you have not captured me. You made a little pin-prick against my forces at Tora Bora. Let me repeat: a little pin-prick! And you let me get away. Why, Dick? Weren't you serious, weren't you potent? You went after Saddam Hussein--the dictator you had previously kissed up to. You killed a million Iraqis because they wouldn't kiss up to you! Dick, this is not the way of a man! This is the way of a dick!"



    Parent
    squeak is the smear king (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:31:44 PM EST
    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.



    Parent
    hahahahha (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:32:31 PM EST
    Great response to my quoting one of your own bedwetter fantasies. You smear yourself quite well without my help.

    Look at the demographics. The west is being out bred and is importing Moslems at a rate that insures the end of western culture.

    And in terms of saving your fictional audience the major portion of your off the wall comment you should thank me.

    Parent

    Projecting again?? (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:32:34 PM EST
    As I have noted before, only you and edger ever talk about "bedwetters."

    In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one's own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions

    What's the matter? Did you get your butt spanked as a child when you made a "mistake?"

    Parent

    hahhahaha (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:15:27 PM EST
    Your bedwetter condition is well known and documented. Edger and I are not the only ones that know about this condition that affects bushlickers from wingnuttia. Google

    Parent
    Sorry squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:38:59 AM EST
    In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one's own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions

    but you and edger are the only two who bring "bedwetters" up.

    That means that it must have a prominent place in your mind.

    Have you thought of getting help??

    Parent

    We both, and so do many others here, (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:51:53 AM EST
    keep trying, so far without result, to help you ppj.

    Parent
    But what about... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by TomStewart on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:32:30 PM EST
    the British? They invaded us and burned down our White House, shouldn't we worry about fighting them over here if we don't take them out now. Oh sure, they're our friends, so they say, but what about the future? They could send another infestation of Beatles over here to teach our kids about the dope and the wearing of Mr. Fish shirts, not to mention Peter Max posters and Nehru jackets!

    I'm for bombing our original enemy, those limey buggers who forced Dolly Madison out into the rain in her nightgown...before they strike us again!

    Parent

    Don't quit your day job... (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:37:15 PM EST
    But to follow your lame attempt at humor....?

    We won that war and signed a treaty with the Brits and actually became good friends.... (You need to get out more.)

    Of course we didn't have the Left demonstrating and the Majority Leader of the Senate declaring the war lost...

    Parent

    Are you projecting again??? (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 05:19:23 PM EST
    Please note that I speciifed that no conspiracy theory existed.

    Can't you read?

    Tehehe

    Parent

    On the other hand (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by jondee on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 01:36:51 PM EST
    Thank God Jim's buddies got the Reagan bio pulled off the air. All that proved is that some things are still sacred, eh Jim?

    Parent
    Censorship is making something legally unavailable (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by kovie on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 04:25:58 PM EST
    This was not that. This was pressuring a network to not show a crappy series based on smears and lies. No less than when some Catholics demanded that theaters not show The Last Temptation of Christ, some Jews demanded that they not show The Passion, and some wingnuts demanded that they not show F/911. Why is it always censorship when it's YOUR side that's being targeted?

    Because Republicans are hypocritical liars, that's why. It's a proven FACT.

    Oh, and they're pantywaists too. Which is why they get the vapors and run to their mommies and cry "Unfair!" whenever criticized.

    They can dish it out, but they CANNOT take it.

    Larry Craig, anyone?

    Parent

    And important distinction (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by roy on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 05:28:39 PM EST
    Demands from a group of sitting senators is very different from demands from private groups.

    Parent
    Not sure I follow that (none / 0) (#37)
    by kovie on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 07:12:56 PM EST
    or know what you're talking about.

    Parent
    Try reading the link and maybe you'll (1.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:01:04 PM EST
    quit making such funny comments.

    Last year, a Clinton spokesman referred to the ABC enterprise as "despicable," and then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and four other Democratic senators signed a letter to Disney Chief Executive Robert A. Iger stating that if the miniseries were shown it would "deeply damage" Disney's reputation. As a result of the tumult, ABC was unable to attract advertisers for the miniseries.


    Parent
    Still don't get your point (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kovie on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:20:26 PM EST
    Are you saying that libel and slander are ok--so long as it's against Dems--or that it's wrong for elected politicians and their supporters to warn a major media corporation that it could damage its reputation (and bottom line) if it aired libelous, slanderous and dishonest pantywaist wingnut propaganda?

    What exactly was illegal, immoral, unethical or otherwise wrong about this? I'm still trying to figure that out. Best as I can tell, this is still a matter of scared wingnuts complaining about those mean Dems calling them bad names. Whaaa!

    Seriously, what is your LEGITIMATE gripe--you know, the one that isn't merely about making stuff up and having your feelings hurt when called out on it?

    Whaaaaaaa!

    Parent

    Do you really expect (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:43:19 PM EST
    to say that it is acceptable for the (at that time) Minority Leader of the Senate to attack a corporation over their programing decisions???

    That is, say it and not be laughed at??

    The sad part us you probably believe what you write.

    hehe

    Parent

    The pathetic part is (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:18:54 AM EST
    this is coming from the guy who wants retired Generals to just shut up and who probobly did a little trickle-down endzone dance when they pulled the t.v bio of President Alzheimer.

    "Sad", pathetic and transparent.

    Parent

    As opposed to dozens of GOP pols (none / 0) (#61)
    by kovie on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:01 PM EST
    wasting congress's and the public's time by condemning an independant organization and newspaper for publishing an ad?

    You know, the one about General Betray-Us?

    Because, um, he LIED--just like ABC did?

    THAT is acceptable but this was not?

    You people swim in a SEA of hypocrisy--and you know and like it.

    Parent

    The point is not (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 05:21:48 PM EST
    that they are being criticized.

    The point is that the series is not being released as a DVD.

    Parent

    Start up a Sucker of the Month Club, ppj. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 05:36:06 PM EST
    You can rent Pat Robertson's mailing list to get you started. You can have Fleece of the Month Specials. The sheep will eat it right up.

    Just be careful. That temptation to use your own product has done in many before you... you're not the first to succumb.

    Parent

    If it's good for biz (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:48:54 PM EST
    who cares if it's lies, after all, right ppj?

    But always keep in mind that, just like the lottery, Path to 9/11 was made to be sold, not to be bought.

    Parent

    And what point might that be? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kovie on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 07:21:56 PM EST
    And how is this any different from all that "Oh My!" bloviating about The Last Temptation of Christ or the recent Kathy Griffin remarks? Your side loves to get all worked up over imagined insults to your so-called "beliefs", while refusing to acknowledge actual insults hurled by your side to reality-based TRUTHS.

    PT911 was based on a bunch of demonstrable lies that libeled and slandered actual, living people for things that they did not do (or did do but were portrayed as not having done). There is actually a legal, not to mention ethical, basis for seeking to ban it, which makes it rediculous to call it censorship. Whereas MoveOn.org and Griffin merely expressed their constitutionally protected opinions (that in MoveOn's case was based on hard data, can't speak for Griffin).

    HUGE difference.

    Which of course the Republican "mind" either cannot or will not grasp.

    Parent

    Then I urge those slandered to sue ABC. (1.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 07:58:00 PM EST
    Very deep pockets.

    Parent
    Heh, not that they wouldn't love to (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kovie on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:28:39 PM EST
    but to paraphrase the famous saying, never go after someone who leases airtime by the gigahertz. And frankly, PT911 didn't really have much impact on wide public perception of the massive screwups by Bush and his party of fools over the past 6+ years. Don't need a bad work of hacked-together fiction to tell them that.

    I'll tell you something--you guys are serious masochists. Bring it on!

    Parent

    Hold on there... (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:47:42 PM EST
    Kovie... I thought the scions of the Left always spoke truth to power..

    What happened..?? Are you afraidsee of the big bad ABCeeee??

    But now we get to the truth of the matter.

     

    PT911 didn't really have much impact

    So what's your problem? Why do you care??

    Tehehe

    Parent

    A lie is a lie is a lie (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by kovie on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:44:37 PM EST
    Shh, don't tell anyone but our next big project will be to break up News Corp's holdings in each metropolitan market...and force it to stop calling itself a news organization. My suggestion would be "Moronic Lies for Moronic Pantywaists Who Still Wet Their Pants When People Call Them Bad Names".

    Parent
    And with alot (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:23:39 AM EST
    of lawyers with very deep pockets.

    Fabulous legal advice, Darrow. Better start a Swift-Litigants-for-Truth fund.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 12:17:08 PM EST
    and, as with most (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:42:52 AM EST
    conspiracy theories, it is utterly lacking in any factual basis. so, with respect to democrats, what else is new?

    I agree with Stone. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:20:58 AM EST
    "it's censorship in the most blatant way." But I don't think it has much to do with art.

    I don't think the film should be censored for the same reason that no other examples of craziness and propaganda should be censored and the same reason that wingnut trolls should not be banned.

    People would forget how to recognize craziness and propaganda too soon, without examples.

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kovie on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 04:19:48 PM EST
    It's not censorship that we're calling for, but simply not allowing blatant lies and smears posing as truth under the cloak of art to be shown on publically-owned airways. This falls more under potential libel and slander than artistic freedom or censorship. And why was ABC allowed to get away with what was basically a 4 hour political endorsement of one party--and one based on lies, no less?

    Parent
    Private enterprise (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:04:28 PM EST
    but simply not allowing blatant lies and smears posing as truth under the cloak of art to be shown on publically-owned airways.

    Then why do you oppose it being sold as a DVD? That's private - repeat 100% private - enterprise.

    BTW - Who gets to determine what the truth is??

    Shall we shut down the Dixie Chicks??

    Parent

    They're not trying to legally prevent its sale (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by kovie on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:40:39 PM EST
    and you know it. They're merely trying to pressure this company to not release it. Nothing illegal about that, just as there was nothing illegal about pressuring radio companies to not play Dixie Chicks songs. Except, of course, that they told the truth, while PT911 was a bunch of lies. Other than that, no difference.

    And your question about "Who gets to determine what the truth is?" is a typically transparent and lame wingnut attempt to muddy the waters and set up a straw man. How do you know that there is a country called Iraq? How do you know that there is an organization called Al Qaida and that it's led by a guy named Bin Laden? Who gets to determine the truth about that? Huh? Can you PROVE their existance (let alone threat to the US) to me? Nice try, Socrates. To paraphrase a brilliant Repub political strategerist, you have your "truth", and I've got THE truth.

    Parent

    Thanks for making my point. (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:52:27 PM EST
    They are not trying to legally prevent its sale...They're merely trying to pressure this company to not release it
    .

    So pressure from elected officials is alright??

    Wanna keep your license ABC??? Then toe the line...

    My my. What lower than an alligator's belly at the bottom of the river standards you have.

    hehe

    Parent

    Standards? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by kovie on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:41:12 PM EST
    You mean like...pedophiles...creepy bathroom sex trollers...massively corrupt graft-takers...evil wars based on blatant lies...tax cuts for the hyper-rich...election fraud...outing CIA agents...

    Yeah, gotta love those standards.

    And hell yes, I'm ok with elected officials telling private companies to stop selling lies on DVD and calling it truth. Just as elected officials have the right to demand the deportation of anyone who dares accuse a  dishonest, ass-kissing general of telling lies in order to keep us in a war that he knows we can't win and have no business fighting, all because Repubs are constitutionally incapable of admitting being wrong. Tell your guys to stop lying and killing, and I'll tell mine to be nicer.

    What is it with you people and your need to lie about literally everything all the time--including to yourselves? Doesn't it make you go nuts or something?

    And do you really think that we're dumb enough to buy it? Why are you here, defending your side's non-existant honor and "standards"? Is this sport for you, a pantywaist ego thing, a pathetic attempt to win people over, or do you actually believe this tripe you're peddling?

    And here it comes, William Jefferson, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, blah blah blah. The only way that you guys EVER try to "defend" yourselves is by invoking the lame "but you guys do it too!" "defense". Yeah, we do do it. There, I admit it--see, we're HONEST about our problems. But our guys don't do it nearly as often or bad as your guys, and without ruining a country in the process or killing millions.

    I guess that that's OUR "standard".

    Parent

    Rovie (1.00 / 2) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:58:06 AM EST
    And hell yes, I'm ok with elected officials telling private companies to stop selling lies on DVD and calling it truth

    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.

    Okay, we understand what you are about.

    BTW - You gonna do that with no hearing? No trial? Just have your guys shut'em down?

    On May 10, 1933, in a symbolic act of ominous significance, the students burned upwards of 25,000 volumes of "un-German" books, presaging an era of state censorship and control of culture.

    Link

    Parent

    More Like This (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:42:15 AM EST
    In 1999, St. Martin's Press published a book by author James H. Hatfield called Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President. The book, which contained allegations that then-candidate George W. Bush had used cocaine in the 1970s, received barely any media coverage -- until Hatfield's own past came into question, at which point Hatfield, not the allegations in his book, became the media's primary discussion topic during the story's short life.

    While the media virtually ignored Fortunate Son (other than to condemn the book and its author), the Bush campaign was quick to threaten legal action, and many in the media suggested the press had a responsibility to either ignore the book altogether or to debunk its claims. When St. Martin's eventually suspended publication and recalled the book, the Bush campaign lauded the decision as "the right thing to do."

    Media Matters

    Or any one of these

    Parent

    Well, that's different (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:34:24 AM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#74)
    by kovie on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:29:33 PM EST
    See his response below--like clockwork.

    Robots, these people. They hand them the one-page talking points in the morning and after they're had their 3 hours to absorb all 5 bullet points, off they go...

    I'm not a Trekkie (Trekker?), but I'm guessing that they based the Borg on these people, knowing Roddenberry's politics.

    Resistance is futile!

    Parent

    You are not logical (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:28:07 PM EST
    A book that claims to be factual is not comparable to a TV series that claims to be a docudrama.

    But your claim that it is okay for elected officials to censor movies and TV series really says it all.

    Enjoy your trip to Venezula did you??? How was Hugo doing??

    Parent

    First you admit that this is not censorship (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by kovie on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:55:23 PM EST
    which of course is a LEGAL action, and now you go back to claiming that it IS censorship. Can you please make up your mind already?

    And Hugo's doing great. He said that he worries about you and that you're not taking your meds, and is willing to foot the bill if that's the issue.

    Nice try--typical wingnut comeback. What happened, calling people smarter and more honest than you commies no longer as satisfying?

    Parent

    Not the same (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:08:08 PM EST
    the Bush campaign was quick to threaten legal action,

    So? The book was published. The difference being is that the book was not sold as docufiction, but as fact. Based on the actions of the publisher, the "facts" weren't "facts."

    See the difference?

    BTW - Those also weren't Senators threatening, who could cause the publisher to lose his license to broadcast....but private citizens working on a campaign.

    See the difference?

    Parent

    Not really (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by kovie on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:31:56 PM EST
    Pressure was applied by people who might well soon occupy the most powerful office in the world, who had close ties to and lots of friends among already sitting senators, congresspeople and local elected officials.

    You really think we're stupid, don't you? Can you literally not think beyond the next talking point and assume that neither can we?

    Parent

    Real clever (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by kovie on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:39:25 PM EST
    Am I supposed to be some sort of leftie turdblossom? Hee hee, I'm all chuckles...

    And congress was not trying to make law, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you telling me that if a senator doesn't like something they read in the paper, they can't write an LTE asking that it be retracted, because they have so much power that could be perceived as pressure? Because if you are, then what you're actually doing is forcing senators to not exercize THEIR constitutional rights to free speech. That's what some people might call censorship, smart guy.

    Works both ways, eh?

    Be careful what you wish for, it just might come back to bite you.

    Get back to me once the smoke stops coming out of your ears.

    Parent

    Well, you are half right. Guess which one (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:38:09 PM EST
    Am I supposed to be some sort of leftie turdblossom? Hee hee, I'm all chuckles...

    People in power are always held to a higher standard. And especially when those people fund, approve appointments, etc., to a regulatory agency. (Think FCC and broadcast licenses.)

    BTW - Can I put you down as saying it was okay for political pressure to be exerted in the DOJ? Had no problem with Senator Domenici urging DOJ to fire the prosecutor??

    Did you? Surely not.

    hehe


    Parent

    Well sure they are (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by kovie on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:04:14 PM EST
    Which is why ABC, which surely you will admit has an enormous amount of power, should not have allowed a miniseries based on lies and smears to be aired on the publically-owned airways. And last time I checked, the FCC is under the executive, not congress.

    As for Pajamas Pete and his little call to Iglesias, this is an invalid analogy, because the DoJ is an independant federal department, not a media company--and senators trying to tamper with another branch is hugely illegal.

    So, I fail to see your point. Senators pressuring but not forcing a corporation to not spread lies is completely, obviously and hugely different from a senator pressuring an independant USA to break the law for political gain, and then having him fired for not doing so.

    And you still haven't explained why it's ok for the administration to pressure the NYT to withold crucial stories that they had every right to publish and in no way threatened national security, and threaten legal action if they went ahead and published it anyway.

    You really need to get back on those meds. You're terrible and tiresome liar.

    Parent

    And TRed for violating Godwin (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by kovie on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:47:25 PM EST
    You compare the victims of slander and libel to Nazis, you get a 1. Classic Rove projection tactics--accuse others of that which you yourself are obviously guilty of.

    Or else what do you call threatening to prosecute the NY Times for revealing that the country was being spied on illegally? And no, national security was not compromised by letting the terrorists know that we monitor their phone calls. They could figure out how to hijack and fly 4 planes and yet have no clue that we can and do tap phone lines? Mercy me!

    Parent

    More Censorship from ABC? (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:03:42 AM EST
    ABC has to lay low for a bit after several phony interviews and reports from their source who also happens to be a paid consultant and gets money from the pentagon.

    As I first reported on Friday, "Sources also say that [Alexis] Debat claimed in the spring to have received a 'large chunk of money' from the Pentagon to conduct a study concerning radical Islam." I have since learned that he was preparing a study on Islamic warfare, perhaps for Andy Marshall.

    He's apparently convinced some that the faked interview episode is an opera bouffe misunderstanding brought about by different journalistic practices between the United States and France. And some people apparently prepared to buy it.

    More censorship ppj? just like your burning books analogy...

    hahahahahaha

    ABC appears to have removed all of Debat's stories from the website.

    Laura Rozen has been following this story and all of it is well worth a read.

    Squeaky - Trying to change the subject. (1.00 / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:11:31 PM EST
    What does any of that have to do with ABC not releasing a previously broadcast docudrama miniseries on DVD??

    No one is claiming it is accurate.

    Parent

    BS (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:42:24 PM EST
    When it was released at first the claim was that it was accurate. ABC has a reputation to uphold even if it's parent co. is right wing.
    Alexis Debat is a tool of the same swiftboaters that ran the miniseries. His lies were also presented as truth and now ABC has pulled all his stories. Seems like ABC's credibility is on the line here. Releasing a wingnut spun docudrama in order to cloud the truth of 9/11 is all that they need to show the public how FOS they are.

    Purely business hardly censorship.

    Parent