Fahrenheit 9/11’ ban? Ads for Moore’s movie could be stopped ...

[struggle4progress]

... on July 30

Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the legal advice of its general counsel.

At the same time, a Republican-allied 527 soft-money group is preparing to file a complaint against Moore’s film with the FEC for violating campaign-finance law.

In a draft advisory opinion placed on the FEC’s agenda for today’s meeting, the agency’s general counsel states that political documentary filmmakers may not air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.
<snip>

Should the six members of the FEC vote to approve the counsel’s opinion, it could put a serious crimp on Moore’s promotion efforts. The flavor of the movie was encapsulated by a recent review in The Boston Globe as “the case against George W. Bush, a fat compendium of previously reported crimes, errors, sins, and grievances delivered in the director’s patented tone of vaudevillian social outrage.”
<snip>

http://www.thehill.com/news/062404/moore.aspx

[truthisfreedom]

1. everything they do will draw more attention to this film.

bring it on, bozos.

[Tellurian]

92. I Hope MOVEON is filing a countersuit for Freedom of Speech

and anything else they can think of to keep Moore's movie afloat,

[2Design]

2. boy are they scared of the truth

[Brahma Bull]

3. Repukes don't want the truth to come out.

They'll be toast if it does. The poor fuckers are scared shitless.

[silverweb]

4. Hehehe...

TOO LATE!!

Anyone who doesn't know about F911 by now is so far out of the loop, it wouldn't matter, anyway.

More controversy about the movie is just more free advertising. Let 'em have their little "ban," for all the good it will do them.

[Eric J in MN]

5. nice how they make up the rules as they go along to help Bush

Does anyone believe that if an ]anti-Kerry documentary were being released, they would have decided that "political documentary filmmakers may not air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election?"


Anyway, can he still advertise the DVD within 60 days of the election without referring to Bush?

[MidwestTransplant]

27. Exactly. The content of the movie doesn't matter,

Just the commercial.

Also, how many movies are still advertised a month after release. If they wanted to, they could just change the trailor anyway.

[1monster]

29. Sure! "You've heard about the sensational

documentary expose Fahrenheit 9/11, winner of the Palm d'ore at the Cannes Film Festival by Michael Moore. Using never before seen news footage, Moore uncovers secrets and puts together the pieces of a puzzle that makes a stunning revealing picture. Now you can own this historic documentary on DVD... available at...

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

6. What horse shit.

Welcome to fascist America.

[Bo]

30. Thats right pilgrim....

Welcome to the GULAG

[IndianaGreen]

60. What's next for the Bush regime? Burn books and films?

This crowd wants the same sort of extraordinary censorship the Nazis carried out against their opponents.

Does the First Amendment mean anything anymore? (This is a rhetorical question since we opponents of PATRIOT Act know full well that the Bill of Rights was buried after 9/11)

[gauguin57]

80. "burn books and films ..."

Fahrenheit 9/11, Fahrenheit 451.

[Cocoa]

7. he could easily modify the ad

so it doesn't include Bush's picture. Keep the Iraq footage, and keep the great music, which is very effective.

[Skip Intro]

28. Just replace the bush images with a chimp in a suit

They'd have to admit the chimp could be mistaken for bush in order to argue the clip referred to bush. Lol - force 'em make that argument.

(I, and evidently others, initially read this story to mean that MM couldn't advertise the movie at all on tv/radio, but that's not what the article says.)

[girl gone mad]

34. Thanks for the laugh. n/t

[lanparty]

77. That would be funny ...

In fact, Moore could use this to his advantage in his ads.

All ads would contain the following warning.
Due to FEC election rules we cannot depict pictures of presidential candidates in our advertising. All such references have been redacted.

He could show the shots of the president in obvious presidential settings. But he would "redact" the image the same way the government does with freedom of information documents. Everywhere the president is he could show a human shaped black splotch. Or one of those obfuscating filters over his face. Every time they say "Bush" it would be bleeped out.

The ads would be HILARIOUS!!!!

[calimary]

87. Or maybe they could just blur his face, the way the genitals of the Abu

Ghraib prisoners were obscured in all those lovely torture photos! Oh, the irony!

[geek tragedy]

8. Please try it.

That ought to ensure that Kerry gets EVERY Libertarian vote.

[riverwalker]

9. by July 30th

most of America will already have seen the movie.

[progressivebydesign]

45. Ummm DVD sales... Those ads will be banned!! That is a big market! N/T

[gasperc]

71. they could state the DVD is available

without actually showing film content

I hate it choking off publicity of the film but if we had a DEM in office and the GOP made a anti-dem movie and ran it in Oct. that would suck. Allow, the evening news and the non-stop neg ads fit the bill

[lanparty]

78. DVD is when the real fun begins ...

You can make them gifts to your friends who are "on the fence". This is especially convenient if you have DVDXCopy.

I hope Moore sets up some convenient licensing saying that people can make a copy to loan to friends and family. Either that, or include a "loner" disc in the box with a cover that looks like a bootleg ;-)

[apnu]

86. that would be... so.... kewl!!!!!

I hope Moore hears of this idea!

[Tuttle]

101. DVD shrink

Much better -- freeware, makes excellent backups

Tut-tut

[truthseeker1]

10. The PR this will create will be more valuable than any advertising

and will in effect save Moore a shitload of money!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. Once the movie hits the theaters, word-of-mouth will be all that's needed.

[Cocoa]

14. it will do very well just by word-of-mouth

but with those great ads, which I've been seeing during Nightline, the movie could be bigger than Spiderman.

[struggle4progress]

16. Bet you're right!

[MikeG]

12. The "Now Watch this Drive" part is killing the Chimpster.

[DrBB]

13. We can only PRAY they are this stuuuuuuuuupid

Please please please please please please PLEEEEEEAAAAAASE do it, guys. Please? come on. It'll take care of this flick, I promise. No really, it will.

[David Zephyr]

15. Then Quid Pro Quo Merits That Rush Limbaugh Be Taken Off the Air.

He is nothing more than a non-stop Bush for President Advertisement on public broadcast.

No 9/11...no Limbaugh.

[Lost147]

17. Ironic

you would thought they would have learnt from similar cases like eminem that trying to hide and censure something only makes it more popular.

[Guaranteed]

67. BOOM. Excellent point. nt

[tom_paine]

76. Only in a Free Nation, NOT Imperial Amerika!

Totalitarian Nations such as ours wouldn't hesitate to apply Soviet-style Double-Standards.

Not even for a tenth of a second!

[lanparty]

79. Taxpayer subsidized ...

Some Senators are leading an effort to get Rush OFF of armed services radio if they don't provide another voice for "balance".

The could run Randi Rhodes right after Rush. That would be excellent. Rush would voluntarily remove his show from armed services radio if he thought that Randi would be on right after him.

Of course, they could play Franken on a delay as well. And you know that Franken always debunks something that Rush has said the previous day.

O'Reilly is the only right wing shill who actually mentions Franken and Air America. Of course, he refers to Franken as "Stuart Smalley", something Franken is VERY pleased with.

[gulliver]

18. Director's cut DVD and ads, ads, ads

Moore should create a director's cut version with additionaly footage and just advertise it over and over until the election. It will sell DVDs of course, but the effect on Bush will be to "unsell" his undeserved image. The funny thing Bush the "great leader" is that all you have to do to undermine him is show video of him being himself. If you want to sell George W. Bush as an a**hole, your best salesman is George W. Bush.

[meisje]

19. Movies never advertise beyond 30 days anyway

[smiley_glad_hands]

20. Is Moore Advertising this film as:

"The Movie the Government doesn't want You to See!"

[smiley_glad_hands]

21. If Moore can't show ads for his movie then Fox can't advertize either.

[Skip Intro]

22. A thought about how to "get around" this.

Just kind of thinking out loud, but...

I think that the real danger this desperate, un-American attempt at censorship poses is that it will be hard to build a buzz when the video is released.

Well, here's a thought.

Preceding the July 30 deadline, have MM make the public aware that after that date, the government of the US will no longer allow him to talk about his movie.

After the July 30 date, and especially around the video release date, run commercials with flames on a black background, and text that reads: "the movie they don't want us to tell you about" - "in video stores Tuesday."

Then they could have the cover of the video case designed with nearly identical flames on a black background. Somewhere on the video case, it could read: "the movie they don't want you to see."

Since the name of the movie isn't mentioned, this would be permissible, right?

[mike1963]

24. I think you might just have something there...send it on to MM

www.michaelmoore.com

:toast:
:D

[ilovenicepeople]

39. and go one step further and change the name of the film

after July 30th it will be known as THE MOVIE! I just saw a different version of the trailer up here in Canada, I think its only been showing on TV for the last 3 days here?The really downplayed it though,They called it "The Most Controversial Movie of the Year" What a understatement I would call it the Most Controversial(sp?) Movie in History of Mankind!(sorry I didn't decide to put those two words together) Scarecasim intended.

[serryjw]

57. Change that to the "F-MOVIE" they don't want you to see!

:bounce:

[Triana]

66. Please sent this idea to MM.com

Flag it somehow as to get attention of someone there. Maybe even write a paper letter and send it if there's a po box or street addy.

Worth a try!

[trogdor]

81. How about the pic of MM and Bush skipping in the grass...

...except with Bush's head pixelled out.

[AP]

23. CNN, FOX, MSNBC and the other mediawhores will go out of business if this

rule is enforced fairly.

[BattyDem]

26. Exactly!

If a documentary is going to be banned for violating campaign-finance law, then newscasts about Bush or any other candidate should also be banned ... and CSPAN should be outlawed forever! ;-)


On edit: They seem to be overlooking the fact that Moore isn't using actors to portray Bush negatively, nor is he making anything up. He's simply giving people the facts in a humorous way (and he can site sources for them ... so can most DUers.) He's using actual footage of Bush* and Co. He's not splicing together multiple clips to make a funny (and politically charged) scene, he's using the actual, unedited footage which the news broadcasts censored - anything negative comes from Bush* and the way he presents himself. "Now watch this drive" speaks for itself and it speaks volumes - that's not a distorted, political ad ... it really happened that way! So if Bush says something to make himself look bad between July 30th and the election, will he also be violating campaign finance laws? :evilgrin:

[lanparty]

82. Saturday Night Live ...

Will they be unable to portray the President 30 days before the election because of this ruling?????? To be fair, would they be able to parody Kerry?????

[Charlie Brown]

25. This does not sound unreasonable

I am no proponent of gov't interference with free speach, but I do not believe that anyone with a specific agenda (left or right), should be given a boundless microphone to tout their gospel & try to sway the public right before an election. Though it's unfortuate (and undoubtedly political)that this draft was presented exclusively to counter Moore's film, the 30/60 day window seems rational to keep interest groups from "educating" the public on which candidate to vote on. This rule does not "ban" Moore, it just prohibits advertisements after a certain date. Since most of his core audience is well aware of the movie by now, I don't see that this will effect its success much. If it was Limbaugh or Hannity who were having ads blocked, would any of you have a problem with it?

[KDLarsen]

31. I think you're missing the point..

.. if F911 goes, then should both Hannity & Limbaugh. The problem is, both of the latter have been spouting their propaganda for quite a while (Limbaugh even to the US troops), without the FEC being bothered, whereas F911 haven't even been released yet.

[Charlie Brown]

41. Limbaugh has no business

being aired to US troops (at our expense, no less). However, he and the rest tend to mask their views as "conservative" rather than political. Moore's film is directed explicitly and unapolegitically at the Bush administration. Even if his intentions are good, do you think someone should be given an unchecked mouthpiece to promote a political agenda up to the eleventh hour before an election? I will rue the day when the Christian Coalition or Nat Right to Life make their own propaganda films and demand the same exposure that other pol documentarians received.

[struggle4progress]

61. Have you seen the movie?

A number of reviews indicate that Moore is doing something other than a partisan hack job, since he's upset at a number of Dems for voting to permit Boosh's war.


Do you actually support prior restraint of free speech? I'm having trouble understanding your idea that people shouldn't "promote a political agenda up to the eleventh hour before an election." How are people to decide which candidate to vote for? Do you consider the pablum served up by the corporate media to be free of "political agenda"?

[Charlie Brown]

89. By Moore's own admission

this movie is a "poltical hack job." He says he wants it to "reveal the truth" and get Bush out of the White House. Sounds unnervingly like Limbaugh to me. Do I support prior restraint of free speech? I don't quite see that having the ability to run massive quantities of ads to sway voters is equatable with "free speech." If F9-11 was being barred from theaters or if Moore was being prohibited from mentioning Bush in public, I'd agree that he was being gagged. This rule (though I've been told it's not the FEC) simply prohibits ads a given number of days before the election. The powers that be simply don't believe that interest groups or people with agendas (which Moore's statements clearly affrim) should have the kind of power to decide elections. On this issue, I happen to agree. If they let Moore have unlimitd access to the airwaves (if Mirimax wanted, I'm sure they could end up running ads every half hour leading up to the election) every right-wing/fundamentalist organization will want in on the action, and will start trying to reach voters the same way. If that happened, we would not be having this conversation. Campaign ads are inevitable, but those ads are usually paid for by the candidates themselves, not by individuals/groups with agendas. If federal rules keep people like that from deciding the outcome of elections, I think they serve a purpose. How are people to decide on which candidate to vote? I would hope they'd have a clear understanding of the issues/candidates, and not vote against a candidate simply because Moore/Limbaugh/whoever tells them to.

[struggle4progress]

96. Where does Moore call his own film a "poltical hack job"?

I've scouted around and haven't found such a quote. You have a link?

[Charlie Brown]

97. misunderstanding

I placed the words "political hack job" in quotations because the previous post had used it. I did not mean to infer that Moore had used those words. He has, however, stated that the film is not "fair and balanced," and that his goal with the film is to get Bush out of office. Here's a link.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ThisWeek/Entertainment/michael_moore040620-1.html

[struggle4progress]

98. He doesn't actually say the film is not "fair and balanced" ...

but only that he will not claim it is. Moreover, your assertion that the goal of the film "is to defeat President Bush" appears to be a somewhat garbled reading of what interviewer Stephanopoulos said, not what Moore said: Moore's actual statement is "I would like to see Mr. Bush removed from the White House," which makes no reference to any goals of the film.

[Charlie Brown]

99. Indeed

If Moore deflects the claim that the film is fair and balanced doesn't that inevitably point to the opposite? Moore made the statement on Bush in response to Stephanooulos' question about the goal of the film. This is subject to interpretation, but it indicates that Moore's sentiments & biases are probably reflected in the movie. In any case, this is a moot issue now, as the FEC declined to instate the rule on documentary ads. I wish good luck to Moore in his promotion of the movie (not sure how I'll feel about the inevitable right-wing "films" that are sure to follow).

[wildwww2]

64. What unchecked mouthpiece? I don`t have to pay to see the mother?

The CC and NTTL can make all the films they want. I won`t pay to see them. I know who they bow to. This film (F-9-11) I will see tommorow. When it opens here. Good luck to those killer christians selling their film with no sex in it. At least F-9-11 shows the good fucking we are getting from the Bu$h Admin.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[Charlie Brown]

91. You don't have to pay

to see the ads.

[Magleetis]

Limbaugh and Hannity

will not have their ads blocked and I have a problem with that. There are Hannity and O'liely billboards where I live. If this rule is enforced fairly they should go.

[Charlie Brown]

35. Does this draft

apply to all political endorsements or just documentary filmmaking? If its the latter, I agree that the FEC should not have the power to make rules that only effect specific people (Moore). However, unless right wing billboards have "Kerry is a commie/liar/satanist/whatever" printed on them, I don't see that they'd be eligible for removal under this rule.

[Magleetis]

37. No they

just advertise a show where the host bashes the Democrats. I fail to see the difference.

[Magleetis]

32. duplicate post

[PROUDNWLIBERAL]

33. review of F9/11

Here is a review by Rex Allen of F9/11
http://www.observer.com/pages/onthetown.asp

[Magleetis]

36. Rex Reed's

opinion is worth just as much as any body's.

[BattyDem]

40. True, but something impressed me about Reed's review ...

He didn't accuse Moore of making stuff up to make Bush* look bad, like many other reviewers have. They tend to question Moore's motives and suggest that he's lying and/or distorting the truth. (Tonight on my local news cast, they said that Moore was trying to convince people that there is a link between the Saudis and the Bushes, when there isn't one. Who are they kidding ... Prince Bandar saw the war plan! They also made fun of Moore for suggesting that Congress was never given an opportunity to read the Patriot Act before voting for it. :eyes: They may want to give Russ Feingold a call.)

Reed seems to have a grasp on reality - he's done the fact-checking and he knows the news media didn't do their job. His opinion doesn't matter any more than anyone else's, but it was nice to read a review of the movie by someone who is well-informed.

I don't care if a reviewer hates the movie, but they should at least do a little "Googling" before calling Moore a liar! If the news media questioned Bush's motives for war as much as they're questioning Moore's motives for the movie, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. :-( :mad:

[Magleetis]

43. I agree

it was a good review. I really like this sentence, Mr. Moore is armed with facts, and he presents them accurately and succinctly. The facts are what the * admin wants to suppress.

[Bridget Burke]

68. Speaking of Prince Bandar...

He attended Bush Sr.'s recent birthday bash in Houston, held at the home of Bob & the latest Mrs Mosbacher:

Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's colorful ambassador to the United States, entertained a circle of old friends at the Mosbachers with stories and his quick wit.

www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/features/2625337

No connection between the Bushes & the Saudis? Ha!

[lanparty]

83. Nice Quote

"George W. Bush may be the first President of the U.S. who has brainwashed himself. "

[progressivebydesign]

44. There is A LOT wrong with it.

This ruling is specifically AIMED at supressing free speech. Moore's product is NOT an political ad. Who are these chuckleheads to decide what documentary cannot be screened. Until the monumentous fuckup, Bush, took office, no one cared about this. I'm surprised that you would be willing to let go of even MORE of our freedoms so easily. Musn't criticize the emperor... it's the law!

[Charlie Brown]

48. Not political?

I could be wrong, but hasn't Moore publicly stated his expectations for the film are to reveal the truth about Bush's motives & ultimately sway the election? That sounds pretty political to me. This rule robs us of freedoms? How, by prohibiting adds a given number of days before an election? Oversight like this exists in many forms. I believe that pastors are prohibited from endorsing a candidate in sermons, etc. Do you think that they should be allowed to preach Republican campaign messages and threaten damnation to those who vote otherwise. After all, that's there "freedom of speech." Do you think the Christian Coalition should produce "education" films on who to vote for and have an unlimited barage of adds leading up to the election? Many people abuse their freedoms (especially when campaigning), and some form of oversight is necessary to keep things balanced. Though I'll admit that if this rule applies only to Moore's film, it lacks credibility and he should have some way to contest it.

[Democat]

50. Do you think Rush and Fox News should be shut down as well?

Or are you defending the Republican point of view here?

[Charlie Brown]

52. I don't believe anyone

should be "shut down." Everyone's entitled to have their say in the political arena provided they follow the same rules (FEC or otherwise). Does this rule preclude theaters from airing F911 as of the ad deadline? If not, then it's difficult for me to agree that he's being "banned." Theaters will continue to show the film for as long as they wish. I think it's a shame the film has been "blacklisted" by by some theater chains and venues, but that has nothing to do with the FEC rule. I will see the film on principle, as I dislike being told being told by right-wing skanks like Rush that I shouldn't see it. What is the "Republican point of view?" I thought they hated campaign finance reform & oversight. From what I've seen, every religious right and gun-nut outfit want to contribute as much as possible to their paid guns in office. If this rule will prohibit them from promoting "docuemtaries" as well, it could be used to our advantage.

[pauliedangerously]

59. EXCELLENT points, Charlie Brown

Way to hang in there.

If these people could only see the state-of-the-art media facilities of CBN, in VA Beach, VA, they wouldn't be arguing with you.

Gotta have rules. They have more money, and w/o rules, money wins.

[ilovenicepeople]

56. Which Canidate?

Kerry or Nader?:hi:

[CTLawGuy]

69. the law doesn't prohibit ads

the FEC ruling does, but the BCFR law does not. The only things it bans are soft money and the use of a corporation's or union's general fund for political activities within 60 days of an election.

Pastors are not prohibited from endorsing candidates. How do you explain the Christian Coalition? However, if they do, they may lose tax-exempt status for their church. (The Christian Coalition tried to sue to get tax exempt status back, but the Supreme Court rejected their arguements.) No church has a right to tax-exempt status.

I do think pastors should have the right to say whatever they want, no matter how wrong it is. But if they get into politics, their churches should be forced to pay taxes just like everybody else.


The reason our political system is so corrupt is not that there is political advocacy going on. That is a good thing that we cannot take away. It is so corrupt, because the wealthy donate huge amounts of money to candidates who tap dance for them. That tap dancing often comes at the expense of the people as a whole.

If you have a political opinion and the means to air it, you have the right to do so. If you don't have the means, get ten friends who have the same opinion as you, or donate to MoveOn.

[Charlie Brown]

90. You have a point

that pastors are not "prohibited" from endorsing candidates, etc. However, there is a great incentive for them NOT to, as they will lose tax-exempt status (a devestating loss for most Churches). The powers-that-be have placed (in most cases unrefusable) incentives to keep pastors/Churches from abusing their right to free speech. Moore, similarly, cannot launch barrages of ads on Mirimax affiliated networks to sway voters against Bush and fulfill his stated agenda to remove Bush from office. (Mirimax will be able to advertise the film as much as they want up to the deadline. Has that occurred to anyone?) Moore will find ways to get around this just as pastors find loopholes to promote candidates. He or Mirimax could simply contribute money to anti-Bush ads without promoting the film.

Political advocacy is not ALWAYS a good thing. When individuals acquire enough influence to decide elections (like Rush in '94) I think they (the advocates) have acquired too much power. We need a certain amount of oversight to keep things neutral. Elections should not be dedided by whoever has the largest microphone (even when it is "our guy" with the microphone), they should be decided by an understanding of the issues and the necessity/non-necessity for change (which I'll grant may very well be articulated in F911).

[lanparty]

84. The AD is not political !!!

The AD isn't intended to keep people from voting for Bush. The AD is intended to get people to consume a commercial product. That product is "Fahrenheit 9/11".

The fact that thing the ad is promoting is political has no bearing on the law. The FEC is wrong about this.

Now if specific commercials make political accusations, than THOSE SPECIFIC ads could be decalred in violation. But as long as the ad only presents questions as opposed to answering them, they aren't covered under McCain-Feigngold.

If the partisan FEC has any brains, they'll back down from this. They will be challenged in court and it will only provide free publicity for Fahrenheit 9/11.

BTW, regarding the Christian Coalition. They WERE a non-profit group. As such, they're supposed to refrain from politics. But Michael Moore's production company and Lions Gate Films are FOR PROFIT and taxed. They aren't under the same restrictions.

[Charlie Brown]

93. and if the AD

were being shown every 20 minutes the day before the election, you don't think there would be other motives behind it besides the promotion of a product? As long as the ad only presents questions it is fine? From what I've seen, the ads go further than that. The poster (with Moore standing with Bush) communicates his intention of discrediting the man. There is nothing wrong with this, but it clearly presents Moore's intenetions regarding Bush. The trailer (I haven't seen specific TV spots yet) all portray Bush in an unfavorable light. Nothing wrong with that either, but when Moore (or Miramax, whoever) have the unchecked power to run these ads as often as possible, they've moved beyond merely advertsing a product and entered the realm of political advocacy on television. Can you imagine the field day Rush, Hannity would have discrediting Kerry's Presidency if Hollywood used a tactic like this? "The only reason this idiot is in office is because that swine Michael Moore stacked ads for his film simultaneously with the election." and so on. Advocates have their place in poltics. I just don't like giving them a over-sized soap box to stand on. Once you do that, every big activist group want in on the action. Can you imagine Nat Right to Life or whoever producing a documentary about how all Democrats are baby murderers and then promoting all hell out of it leading up to the election. We need boundaries to keep thugs like that from deciding who runs our country.

[XanaDUer]

94. ?

I am no proponent of gov't interference with free speach, but I do not believe that anyone with a specific agenda (left or right), should be given a boundless microphone to tout their gospel & try to sway the public right before an election.


What do you think Fox does everyday?

[Charlie Brown]

95. I don't

think much of Fox News, but If Moore (or anyone else) wants to start his own news channel that endorses "liberal" POVs, nothings stopping him (except maybe money). If FOX was shut down for violating election rules, Air America and Stern would be next. This would be too much power by a gov't entity & a violation of free speech. The FEC rule only applies to documentary ads.

[teryang]

38. This confused and simplistic analysis won't get by

First of all, it's bootstrapping. The movie isn't being broadcast, the commercial is. Any alleged content in commercials can be avoided by simply saying "Come see, Fahrenheit 911." How can that be proscribed? Scenes of the towers coming down and soldiers fighting in Iraq can be shown with no specific references to the Chimp.

Any prior restraints of commercials of this nature with no references to candidates are presumptively unconstitutional and will be enjoined.

[pompano]

42. May tell my age here?

I remember when the movie Exorcist came out. The first night showing, in the drizzling rain, a handful of people showed up to see it. The Religious Right showed up in pick-up trucks with bull horns screaming at the few people waiting in line. The local news made a big thing about it. The next night, in the pouring rain, the line for the movie was wrapped around the building at least twice.

BRING IT ON!

[TexasBushwhacker]

46. Wait a cotton pickin' minute - July 30 would be over 90 days

before the election on November 2nd. It doesn't matter anyway. He can do the commercials with Bush until July 30th and then on August 1st, the commercials can be "I'm Michael Moore, and I've approved this message" and then show Rumsfeld, soldiers, a split screen of the burning towers and a spewing oil well, etc. etc.

[Tight_rope]

55. Good one!

[struggle4progress]

62. Or on August 1st, Moore can change to a commercial that says ...

(against a big white-on-black background !CENSORED!) "They hired a PR firm to intimidate theatres into not showing my movie. Then they tried to keep me from advertising it. What don't they want you to see and hear? Fahrenheit 911: Now Showing"

Just no mention of Boosh in the ad ...

[lanparty]

85. Well said ...(nm)

[Kinkistyle]

73. "The film the government and the FCC doesn't want you to see"

By that time the whole country will basically know what F9/11 is all about and Moore can use that opportunity to start calling up his "celebrity fans" (Leonardo DiCaprio, Howard Stern, etc.. etc..) to give him a helping hand with advertisement.

[Endangered Specie]

47. THey are scared shitless of this film...

it could be worse than the *(shiver)* Clenis.

[Democat]

49. They must also Fox News from the air as well as Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.

This cannot stand, no matter what.

AM radio will have to shut down if this ruling passes.

[drdtroit]

51. RELAX everybody,

As they say, the FEC has got Michael Moore right where he wants them! He's gonna whup their ass like he caught 'em stealing something (which coincidently they have). :spank:

[Beetwasher]

53. FOX News Is A 24/7 RNC/Bush Ad, So I Fox Will Be Off The Air Too, Right?

:shrug:

[Tight_rope]

54. Nincompoops!

The Republicans are so stupid. Moore should just stop advertising because the republicans are doing a great job at getting the word out about how great the movie is. It's so great that they don't want anyone to see it.

[farmboxer]

58. Moore's Move Does Not Need Ads

word has gotten out and it will grow, if they try to stop the ads, it will create a much larger audience than ever dreamed possible, and it will grow, and grow and grow!

The fascists are showing their true colors!

[MadHound]

63. I just love this statement!

"He uses all of these words to make it look like he makes documentaries. . ."

"Damn those clever filmakers for using words! Words just confuse the matter, and besides, I've only got a fourth grade education, so anything over two sylables baffles me!"

Morans

[Ellen Forradalom]

65. Moore couldn't buy this much publicity

if he had Bush's fortune.

[pathansen]

70. Why should it be against the law to criticize Bush?

They certainly didn't hesitate to attack Clinton throughout his Presidency, not to mention right before the election.

This is not an advertisement and Moore is not running any campaign so why should this have anything to do with Campaign Finance Reform?

[Freddie Stubbs]

74. Mitch McConnell was right, Russ Fiengold was wrong

Remember the campaign finance bill? I hope that Granny D is happy.

[rinsd]

88. CFR did little except curb our freedoms....

It hasn't gotten the money out of politics just shifted it from the parties to 527's.

It is outrageous that issue ads are banned for 60 days before the election.

The only good I see in the bill was the raising of the limit I can contribute to a candidate.

[cmutt]

72. this should be great news

The public, by-in-large, already KNOWS about the movie: continued advertising of it would keep it in the forefront of people's minds, and perhaps, make some curious enough to see it.

BANNING the advertising of it would accomplish much of the same, quite possibly would be a more effective form of advertising, and it wouldn't cost the film's distributors one penny. This should be viewed as great news. Look at what the Fox 'News' suit did for Franken's book?

[lanparty]

75. Doesn't matter ...

Movies rarely advertise after a few weeks, let along a whole month.

But this really cannot stand. It would be the same as saying all the TV news magazines etc... cannot advertise commercials after July 30. Even the Bush bitch DISNEY would be upset if they can't run commercials for the Stossilized 20/20.

[oasis]

100. You are correct sir. (nt)

[struggle4progress]

102. Looks liker FEC won't go this route

FEC declines to rule on f911 ads
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=644531

FEC Declines to Rule on Filmmaker (Michael Moore) Exemption
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=643722

[Tellurian]

103. Hey, I just got tickets for the early evening movie tonight!

many more theaters are showing F911 now that the threat level is suppressed. Where there were only 5 or 6 theaters showing it in my area, there are now 19 theaters who are screening it..

Ya-hoo! I'm psyched!