Isn't it funny? When CBS wanted to air a "Docu-Drama" that was not favorable to Ronald Reagan, the Republicans had no problem with censorship when they went crazy and pressured CBS to pull it. Now that it's the Democrats trying to stop something critical of Bill Clinton and suddenly the Republicans are all about free speech. What's up with that?
Personally I think this 9/11 program is crap and as someone who lost a good friend in the South Tower I think it's offensive. However, I also think ABC should air it and let the American Public see it for the Karl Rove propaganda it is.
2006-09-09 08:16:17 · 19 answers · asked by arvis3 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think it's important that we understand that neither movie is a victim of "censorship."
There is no official agency editing these movies. Instead, it is simply entertainment businesses responding to the free speech of those who propose to boycott and protest these networks for airing such items.
This is a classic and truly democratic means of protest, having been used by such diverse people as Martin Luther King and The Christian Coalition.
Now, when the government proposes to remove a movie from the air, stop a paper from publishing a critical story, or require protesters to congregate in fenced-in "free speech areas," then we are being censored.
Let's reserve our indignation for these violations, for they are the ones that truly threaten democracy.
2006-09-09 09:07:20 · answer #1 · answered by Steve 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Republicans have always favored free speech. It was NOT the Republican party that caused the Reagan docudrama to pulled from CBS, it was the PUBLIC reaction to the movie that caused that. Furthermore, the movie wasn't cancelled, it was shown on a cable TV channel. Free speech wasn't suppressed by a political party.
On the other hand, the Democrats DO NOT want the movie shown AT ALL. They have threatened to try to revoke ABC's broadcast license if it is shown. It is the Democratic party that is trying to suppress the airing of this movie.
Conevenient that...When the Dems don't want something seen or heard, they trample all over the First Amendment.
So much for free speech. Thank you Democrats.
2006-09-09 08:24:39 · answer #2 · answered by Albannach 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Ronald Reagan was dead and could not defend himself. A dead person can't sue for liable.
As far as I can see the Republicans are not making a big deal about this. The two people you see complaining the most are convicted criminals (Clinton and Berger). Not the Karl Rove, we don't like what he says so he must be a liar type, these guys were convicted in court. I think that there is a jury instruction that says that a convinced perjurer is less trustworthy than others.
2006-09-09 08:32:32 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Clinton people, the 9/11 commission, even some of the actors in the movie are saying there are inaccuracies in the movie. Yet right wing radio doesn't seem interested in discussing whether not the facts are correct, or if the compression of several incidents that took place over years in to one scene in the movie leaves the wrong impression of what happened and when. They want the movie to show the Clinton administration in as bad a light as possible, regardless of the truth, and then they criticize Clinton of censorship for wanting to make sure the movie is accurate.
2006-09-09 08:36:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
by using fact there substitute right into a philosophical shift contained in the events. The South, as quickly as ruled via Democrats, grew to become packed with Republicans. And the North, as quickly as Republican, grew to become extra like the Democrats. The philosophy of the persons hasn't replaced, however the philosophy of the events have, so human beings switched aspects.
2016-09-30 12:37:16 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both sides do the same thing. Did you get offended, by "farenheit 9/11" or "WTC" or "Flight 93" or any of the other films/docus done about 9/11?
2006-09-09 08:29:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
RE: The Reagan documentary. It did air. The "people" who were protesting its airing was Michael Reagon, Ronald's son, who beleived it was unfair as it portrayed Reagan using foul language-(which he did not.) In addition, the movied aired after the former president's parkinsons was well advanced. Therefore, it was unfair as Reagan could not dispute any untruthful portrayal of him.................. Oh, is Clinton ill?
2006-09-09 08:34:34 · answer #7 · answered by Cherie 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why are Democrats on the side of Censorship?
What do they have to hide about 9/11?
Hmmmm.
2006-09-09 08:20:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Republicans and democrats both have always championed free speech. It's just that republicans like TRUTHFUL free speech. Democrats such as Bill Clinton enjoy lies.
2006-09-09 08:23:22 · answer #9 · answered by dlobryan1 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What makes your party so different? face it, both sides want the opposition to just shut up. Or die. Or get cancer.
Here is a good question for you, what did Clinton do on his watch to put a stop to global terror? Squat, that's what!
2006-09-09 08:22:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋