Why Aren't Liberals Pro-Free Speech?

Question

Back when Fahrenheit 9-11 came out, liberals couldn't get enough of fictional documentaries, Michael Moore draped himself in the First Amendment and the Liberals ate it up. Now a Docudrama with some dramatized scenes (because there probably weren't any cameras rolling while the CIA did their business) is about to air, and all liberals from Albright to Sandy "Secret Documents in his pants" Burger, to Clinton himself want to censor it. What would the liberals say if Bush demanded fahrenheit censored? Do the Liberals realize that their demands for censorship tend to legitimize the claims of the show? Are they worried that Clinton's handling of the run-up to 9-11 may hurt Hillary's chances to run for the presidency, or at the least a re-election bid for Senator of New York ? How will New York view the Clinton's after watching them not risk taking out Bin-Laden while he was in their cross-hairs, for fear of possible civilian casualties, in the light of the real civilian casualties of 9-11?

Answer 1

If the GOP even made a comment about censoring or pulling Fahrenheit 9/11 they would be crucified by not only the democratic party but also the media and most of hollywood. They would claim censorship and that the government was trying to control what people see and read, a "big brother" if you will.

I think the fact that the liberals are trying to censor this movie because they know it will legitimize what has been said for almost five years. Yes blame does go on the Bush administration as well but come on, Clinton was in office for 8 YEARS, President Bush was in office for 8 MONTHS, I'd say there is a major difference here. Bush was still trying to get his cabinet together because the democrats in the senate kept blocking his nominations. It's hard to get intel together when you are having trouble getting the people you need to have everything in order.

I think Senator Clinton's presidential ambitions are the main reason they are demanding this be pulled. President Bush never tried to control what the people saw during his re-election campaign but hey that's called freedom of speech right? But if it's a democratic politician that is under any kind of microscope, drama or not, they claim it's their freedom of censorship.

I don't know what this "docu-drama" (and yes ABC has said many times that this is a docu-drama) is going to do in terms of New Yorker's views on Senator Clinton, it may change, it may not. I think most people have made up their minds about her already. I personally do not believe this is the right time for America to have it's first woman president. There is too much at stake and our enemies do not take even their own women seriously, how do you think they would take ours? This is war, we need someone to protect us not their own agenda.

Answer 2

Might as well air it. It's old news anyway. Ever since 9/11 every conservative I know has been blaming the Clinton Administration for the attack.

So it's nothing I haven't heard a gazillion times already.

What really cracks me up is that everyone forgets that Carlos the Jackal was apprehended during the Clinton Years. And before 9/11 how many of us had ever heard of (CIA trained) Osama Bin Laden.

Clearly as many have pointed out, the 9/11 attacks were being planned long before Bush came into office. Just bad timing for the boy.

But what you really can't defend is Bush's failure to become engaged on the terrorism issue prior to the attacks. You may not like Fahrenheit 9/11...the truth is painful that way...but the truth is your boy didn't read the intel given to him and his handlers weren't keeping him informed.

There's plenty of blame to go around. We were a nation asleep at the wheel.

It's time we stopped slapping each other around and acknowledge that our enemy got by us. Now we have to huddle up and not let them get through the line again.

Hey every down we're in the red zone folks....time for goal line defense.

Answer 3

Note that it is the liberals and moderates who now prevent direct information from being put in your hands about potential candidates 30 days prior to elections. Since many causes are grass roots and use the internet to keep people informed this made it VERY difficult to get the truth. Of course since most media outlets are liberal somehow their messages still kept coming out in the name of "editorials". This is the reason that the NRA purchased a radio station and cable company to be able to continue to communicate to members during the government required "shadow time" prior to elections.

One could argue that these law (McCain-Feingold) hurt the liberal causes as well and the American political process as a whole by directly infringing against the first amendment.

Answer 4

The problem is that Disney/ABC is running it as a documentary, not a "docu-drama". It, like Moore's piece, will be viewed as fact by the unthinking populus because that is the way they are selling it, when in fact, as admitted by the producers, it is filled with half-truths and assumptions.

The problem is not what is being said, but how it is being labeled.

9-11 is the result of massive ignorance dating back to Reagan. He, after all, is the one who funded and armed the Afghans. Attempting to pin it all on one moment in Clinton's presidency shows not only an ignorance of history but a partisan agenda.

It's so partisan that even Rush Limbaugh was surprised ABC decided to air it. And an FBI agent who was brought in to consult on the "docudrama" quit because, he said, "they were making things up." The producer himself even admitted to simply improvising a key scene which depicts the Clinton administration letting bin Laden go when they had him in their sights—a complete fabrication.

The writer of the movie is an unabashed conservative named Cyrus Nowrasteh. Last year, Nowrasteh spoke on a panel titled, “Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood’s Next Paradigm Shift.”

The problem is that Nowrasteh and ABC are representing “The Path to 9/11″ as an unbiased historical drama, not an opinion piece. Promos for the movie say it is “based on the 9/11 Commission Report.”

Interesting story about Clinton and Osama. The CIA had a bead on Osama and wanted to kill him. They went to Clinton for the OK.

Clinton had to let Osama go. Not because he’s weak on terrorism. Because Osama was entertaining half the Dubai royal family and Clinton couldn’t kill them too.

Then, Chimpy pushed to let Dubai buy up all our ports. The same Dubya Ports World that bungled security in Yemen and let terrorists blow up the USS Cole.

Yeah right, Clinton’s fault. What a load of crap.

Answer 5

So you want to censor the people that want to censor the movie. The movie will go on as filmed and ABC will gain ratings for it and some people will be on here quoting the movie as fact when ABC has said it was a dramatization of the real event. It is all about ratings and has nothing to do with any political agenda. My question will repukes find that ABC is the liberal media after the movie?

Answer 6

There's a substantial difference between a letter-writing campaign asking a station not to air a show, and a law forbidding it.

I am fine with the first (and certainly conservatives used it opposing the movie on Reagan), but absolutely opposed to the second.

I believe everyone, even ill-informed radicals and idiot racists, have the right to speak their minds. The rest of us, however, have the right to tell TV stations that we're not going to watch them anymore if they give such folks airtime. That's the other side of free speech.

Answer 7

Neither side of the fence will yield 100 percent to free speech - unless everyone begins to agree with them. That is what is so damaging baout the two party system.

Both parties are weak on the constitution - from arms to privacy, from speech to religion.

Answer 8

Free speech for Bush Bashers, but when ABC presents a docu-drama "The Path to 9/11", Bubba Clinton is all upset because of "lies".

Answer 9

I really want to see this, and "Dixie Chicks, Shut up and Sing" I love true live non-partisan documentaries like those Michael Moore made.

Answer 10

Mom! She's touching me!

That is what I am hearing when I start to read your question.

Basically it is too long, and I lost interest after the use of "fictional documentaries". But all I kept hearing as I started to read was my sister shreaking that after harassing me first.

Face it - everyone is going to disagree about one thing or another. And there is a difference between "dramatic license" and "lying". I think if you look them up, you will see that.