Saturday, September 09, 2006

Democrats Support Censorship

By subtly threatening ABC with its broadcast license for its upcoming "Path to 9/11" show, legislative Democrats show yet again what I've said on here countless times--it's the left that doesn't support free speech, it's the left that's a danger to your Constitutional rights, it's the left that's full of hypocrisy.

As the Instapundit (see blogroll at left) posted:

MORE: ShrinkWrapped doesn't like Democratic officeholders' threats against ABC: "Not only is there is no awareness that the campaign they are running against the Disney Corporation is dangerous but they revel in their ability to use all the forces at their command to intimidate a media outlet. If Republicans did this, the howls of outrage would know no bounds, yet the Democrats, champions of civil liberties as they fancy themselves to be, propose censorship without a trace of irony." (emphasis mine--Darren)

This is generating more blowback elsewhere: "This is exactly the sort of behavior that forces me to vote Republican even when I disagree with half their platform. Hopefully, the American people still believe the First Amendment should be upheld by both parties, and will act accordingly in November."

I've already heard lefties scream about the anti-Democrat guy who made this movie. Well, I heard a lengthy interview with him on Hugh Hewitt's radio show this week. The man may be many things, but he's certainly no friend of Republicans. Yes, he said, he had to merge several similar events into one in the movie, or dramatize some point because no, he wasn't actually in the room when someone said something and he had to guess/infer how the real situation in 1990-something took place. But if certain Democrats look bad in this story, it's not because he's trying to make them look bad.

Right Wing Prof (see blogroll at left) links to a fun little read about the pathetic censorship attempt here.

Since Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, et. al. seem to be such strong advocates of literal truth in all politically-themed movies, I'll have to go through the archives and find pictures of them protesting outside of Michael Moore-on's last movie about the President. I'll get back to you when I find them.


Anonymous said...

Isn't it different when what's considered by most to be a reliable news company goes and puts on such a one-sided telivision show?

Darren said...

ABC, at least its news division, is left-leaning. The guy who made this movie is, from what I heard on a lengthy interview on Hugh Hewitt's show, left-leaning.

Is this show one-sided, or is it realistic? I don't know, and neither do you (unless you've seen the preview dvd's that were sent to a few chosen souls). If it's mostly realistic, then it's not "one-sided".

But even then, does that justify Senate Democrats threating ABC with its broadcast license? You're not trying to justify that, are you?

Robert said...

When it's the left that's putting on a "one-sided" show, and people complain about the one-sidedness, one or both of the following remarks gets trotted out:

(1) "The truth often has a left-leaning bias."

(2) "Can't you grasp that this is just (fiction | irony | entertainment) ?"

But turn the tables, and the proper response is to try and jam the transmission. That's kind of pathetic.

WeileMom said...

Besides the fact that its a docu-drama- not a news show. That's widely known, except apparently to the liberals. Doh!

Anonymous said...

You are sooo right.

We should embrace our 1st Amendment Rights, instead of censorship.

Time to go to our local airports and spit on our troops returning from overseas, hold up pictures of dead Iraqi children and call them warmongering baby killers. That would be sweet.

Since the Repugs have taken their gloves off, we might as well too.

Darren said...

Democ-rats have taken their gloves off many times. Those *acts* you described above--been done lots of times.

I remind you, the guy who made this film is no Republican. He's actually a leftie. He said he was just trying to be honest in making this film.

But Anonymous, if you do those things you're describing above, at least you'd be honest. You'd be out in public, doing what you think is right, risking the social consequences, rather than hiding behind your computer screen and an "anonymous" name, too cowardly to be open with what you really think and feel. You are one of the people John Stuart Mill was referring to when he described people who "will never be free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of men better than himself."

Anonymous said...

No, I wasn't trying to justify that. I also wanted to point out, that you put every single democrat into the same group, making it sound like all of us despise the USA. I'm a democrat because I agree with more of their beliefs than those of republicans, but I'm hardly a member of you group you describe.

Darren said...

Here's an interesting comment that I'll lift from Instapundit's site:

MORE: I agree with this comment: "This firestorm is a lose-lose for Dems. Any rational voter can compare the Bush reaction to Farenheit 911 and the current Clinton reaction, and draw appriopriate conclusions."

Anonymous said...

It's the RIGHT that calls your a traitor to your nation if you speak against the President.

I'm definately not a Republican, I wouldn't call myself a Democrat either.

You do realize that the Democrats are a vital part in our government? The USA would crumble and fall into ruin if the Democrats suddenly ceased to exist. The same goes for the Republicans.

Our nation is based on the fact that people have different views. Our nation thrives because of it. You're an intelligent person, so I'm assuming that you know this. I'll assume that you call the Democrats "rats" and traitors just for kicks.

steven said...


It would be nice if both Republicans and Democreats ceased to exist for a while. Life might be better.

Abe said...

From what I've read/heard, there are factual inaccuracies about people from both parties. I think this is more of a matter of how the show is presented. If there was a warning before the miniseries that stated that events had been altered, dramatized, etc., and that the movie was not completely accurate, then it would be acceptable. Sorry I don't have my facts straight, but did Fahrenheit 9/11 have a disclaimer at the beginning? If it broadcast on national TV, I bet it would have.

Wouldn't it be a violation of free speech if blatant factual inaccuracies that are defamatory are presented as fact, especially on national TV?

I haven't seen either "Path to 9/11" or "Fahrenheit 9/11," but I do know that they were presented in different ways. The issue is in the presentation I think.