THINK PROGRESS on Path to 9/11

[AtomicKitten]

Many tidbits ... check it out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2083490

[SPCAworks]

1. WELL...

I'll put on my flame-proof suit now.

There is NO "selective free speech". Free speech means JUST that. How did you guys feel when the Reagan TV show was CANCELLED because it was unflattering to RR? The Right pressured the network to stop the airing. That was WRONG. And censoring "Path to 9-11" is wrong too.

When "Path to Iraq" comes out in 5 years... I DO NOT WANT some RW group censoring/squelching the content of that docudrama to be. I WANT to see the guts of what was happening in the WH. And if a bit of artistic liberty is used in the making... fine.

You guys who complain about it, the politicians who complain about it are just pathetic shrieking sissies. Be "men" (or women) and respond to the docudrama in point after the fact.

In addition, I've done more 9-11 research than 99.9% of people. Several of the controversial points in "path to 9-11" ARE TRUE.

CIA agents had UBL in the "sites" with Predator overhead, com-line to Berger open and he said NO STRIKE.

That is a fact confirmed by the CIA agent HIMSELF, Michael Scheuer. Read "Imperial Hubris" and "Through the Enemies eyes: Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam and the Future of America"... Scheuer unleashes massive criticism on the BUSH whitehouse and is a vocal critic of he Iraq war. He's NO RW IDIOT.

So IMHO, everyone just grit your teeth and take it.

Because censorship HERE might bring about a precedent for REALLY bad censorship by the OTHER GUYS.

Now I'll pack mu bags and look for the exit. I know the mods here don't like dissent.

[AtomicKitten]

2. there is dissent, sir, and then there are flat-out lies

Both Berger and Clarke have stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that Clinton ALWAYS signed every proposal the CIA put forward on terror and specifically on bin Laden and that Clinton NEVER declined.

I do believe, sir, you have drunk the kool-aid.

Free speech is one thing but presenting an allegedly historical representation that is, in fact, a pack of lies is quite another.

[Lindacooks]

3. "Unflattering" isn't the same as LIES.

And you're wrong. The controversial points in that crappy mockumentary are LIES.

And Democrats are NOT going to 'grit our teeth and take it' any more. We're fighting to the death, because our country is dying. Dying because of the lies of repukes and the chimp administration.

[AtomicKitten]

4. NO MORE LIES

[SPCAworks]

5. Would you call Fahrenheit 911

a) Factually Based, with artistic license used for entertainment value

b) Factual to the letter. Based in the truth as agreed to by a majority of scholars

c)Dramatic recreation of events portrayed with a political slant or nias


??

WHAT IF the federal government had threatened to arrest MMoore??

Censorship is censorship. Plain and simple.

[Lindacooks]

6. Factual to the letter.

Michael Moore is a DOCUMENTARY filmmaker, not a right wing hack. Mr. Moore simply shows clips of ACTUAL NEWS EVENTS. He does NOT 'recreate scenes' using actors.

There's the difference, right there.

And once again, if the movie lies, which is does, calling them on it is NOT CENSORSHIP. It's called standing up for the truth.

Sheesh.

[SPCAworks]

7. If this movie

in it's UNEDITED form was available at BlockBuster right next to Aeon Flux, Titanic and WaterBoy... would you have a problem with THAT?

[Lindacooks]

8. Nope.

It's the use of public airways to spread lies and slander that I have the problem with. Anybody can make a movie about anything they want. Airing it over the PUBLIC airways is the problem.

Of course, according to the critics who have been allowed to see it, it's a bunch of crap anyway - an awful movie.

[SPCAworks]

9. I just

think we should ALL be allowed to make our own judgement.

[Lindacooks]

10. Nope. Slander and libel are against the law.

Nobody is allowed to just say whatever the hell they want. And when this 'movie' just flat out lies and makes things up, that's wrong. And it's illegal. And I hope they get the crap sued out of them.

[SPCAworks]

12. Actually,

See:

New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

[Lindacooks]

13. All you can do is quote 42 year old case law?

That's pretty laughable.

My argument still stands. Slander and libel are against the law.

[SPCAworks]

14. probably

NOT in this case. Using "fair comment" privilege, noone could make it stick.

But I respect your opinion and your passion. There's a difference between legality and lack of sound judgement though...

[Lindacooks]

16. Thanks, I respect your passion as well.

But the lies have to stop. This administration has been lying from the get-go, and it's about time the American people stood up to it and said: NO MORE!

[SPCAworks]

17. I think

WE ARE in the midst of standing up to say NO MORE.

And it starts in less than 60 days.

With more legislative power, we can start to right the ship next year. Unlike many here... I'm hoping for a moderate, centrist DEM in 08. The kind of leader who is respected and honestly, "liked" worldwide. Someone on the level of a Wes Clark or Mark Warner.

We have a lot of damage to repair, you know what I mean?

I can see Clark with a 70% approval after 1 year in office.

[Lindacooks]

19. I sure can get behind Clark or Mark Warner.

Anybody who's a Democrat, to start getting us out of this mess chimpy et al has wrought.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. Basically true: defamation is not protected speech.

NY Times v. Sullivan is still good law; all it does is protect news media, *up to a point*, from defamation claims by public figures. But even a public figure (usually a politician or a celebrity) can maintain a defamation claim by showing that the media defendant acted with "actual malice", meaning that they knew the allegedly defamatory statement was false or that they published it in reckless disregard for the truth. The courts have recognized that the First Amendment allows for even very harsh criticism of public figures (people who have intentionally placed themselves in the public eye), but that it does not protect those who intentionally lie about them. Even the most ardent First Amendment absolutists generally agree that some kinds of speech -- defamation and porn, for example -- are not entitled to Constitutional protection. So if this lame-ass movie contains lies that amount to unprotected defamatory speech, then Albright and Clinton and Berger might be able to sue ABC successfully.

[Time for change]

11. ABC is a news organization that receives a license to broadcast news

to the public for free. In return they are responsible for providing a public service to the country.

If I want to get up in front of a bunch of people and tell them a bunch of lies, that's my constitutional right, as long as I don't slander anyone.

But a news organization operating under a license provided by the United States government has no right to do that. That is NOT covered by our first amendment.

[AZBlue]

18. Free speech covers opinions. Outright lies aren't opinions -

- they are just lies.

I agree that censorship is wrong. I fought just a few weeks ago on this very board for Ann Coulter's right to publish the vile wrecks that she does. Censorship is wrong on either side. But, there's a difference between, for example, Ann's brainless babble and misrepresenting actual events that took place.

While I'd LOVE to see this miniseries pulled, my main problem with it is that it is a lie. It is presenting misinformation and misrepresentation as facts and truth. They are claiming this is history when it's just a fabrication.