Dem Leadership Threatens Disney With Legal & Legislative Sanctions

[kpete]

From Americablog
Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
by John in DC - 9/07/2006 06:02:00 PM


This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.

September 7, 2006

Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” <“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006>

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” <“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006>

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.”

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. <“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006>

That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/senate-democratic-leadership-threatens.html

[MissWaverly]

1. Go, Dems, Go

At last they are standing up, thank goodness!!!

[mhatrw]

167. Radical Evangelical Christian Group Funded this Movie

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2073411&mesg_id=2073411

[gully]

2. KEY statement:

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

With Democrats potentially coming into power in a couple short months, I think ABC is treading on thin ice.

[kwolf68]

15. Wrongo

Maybe the thinking is if ABC allows this program to be aired it will help make sure Dems won't take control of the US Congress.

They don't need to brainwash everyone, just some of us...

[Selatius]

29. That seems like a good possibility.

Middle voters are where this program appears to be aimed at.

[bliss_eternal]

75. Yes, and we all know that they scare easily

and are easily influenced. :eyes: If they see it on tv, it must be true.

[Toots]

195. It appears to be aimed at their children

The children have huge influence upon their parents and if they tell their parents they learned the "truth" in school well the parents get to thinking about it...:shrug: This is no small issue or a lark. This is very serious business.

[gully]

117. Indeed, but if they miscalculate?

Their in lies the "risk."

[OzarkDem]

129. Even if it worked

There are still enough problems vis a vis violating FCC regs AND FEC regs that there would be plenty of grounds for legal action.

[napi21]

16. Is that a veiled threat to yank their license that I see in between the

lines of that letter????

I would certainly think if Iwere an ABC executive, I'd be a bit concerned!

[bobbolink]

52. I would certainly hope it's a "veiled threat"!

If there is follow-through to this letter, then I may actually have to see some of these Dems as growing a spine.

Better late than never.

There needs to be a public clamor about said license, also.

Give 'em hell, Harry! :thumbsup:

[eviltwin2525]

158. unfortunately

ABC doesn't have licenses. Those belong to the affiliate stations.

[DWilliamsamh]

184. BUT... ABC actually OWNS many affiliates. Ex: Philly's 6ABC

ABC OWNS the ABC Affiliate in Philadelphia. It owns MANY stations across the country. If those stations are prevented from broadcasting I would think "Desperate Housewives" will end up with a smaller viewership than "Battle Star Galactica" On Sci-Fi.

The loss of revenue that would result is in fact QUITE a threat. Lets get those letters of complaint to the FCC ready to go.

[brer cat]

23. That is the big statement, Gully. They are on notice BIG TIME!

Thanks kpete, this is a great catch!

[karlrschneider]

54. I think that statement is inaccurate. Networks do NOT have to be licensed

they are merely content providers, they do not actually broadcast anything. (Affiliates that they directly OWN are, though)

Here's a thread that addresses this in some detail

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2073193&mesg_id=2074443

[Tunkamerica]

140. exactly, I work at a television station

and I noticed that immediately. When CBS had the whole Janet Jackson thing only CBS owned stations were fined. Other stations that were just relaying CBS's signal were spared, though they were actually at risk. I know most stations now run on at least a five second delay and here the feeling is better safe than sorry.
Any affiliate can opt out of running the network feed and there may even be more motivation to do this since the whole shindig will be commercial free. Anyways, ABC's owned & operated stations are:

ABC

* New York City - WABC-TV 7
* Los Angeles - KABC-TV 7
* Chicago - WLS-TV 7
* Philadelphia - WPVI-TV 6
* San Francisco Bay Area - KGO-TV 7



* Houston - KTRK-TV 13
* Raleigh-Durham - WTVD 11
* Fresno - KFSN-TV 30
* Flint - WJRT-TV 12
* Toledo - WTVG 13

[DWilliamsamh]

185. They OWN a lot of affiliates in large Markets - like Philadelphia and NY

[NMDemDist2]

3. 6 noms and no posts, so I'm gonna give it a kick

:kick:

way to go!!

[ms liberty]

4. Yes!

They are opening themselves up not only for civil lawsuits, but for the loss of their broadcast license. Dems are taking this seriously and well they should!

KAYY and ARRRRRRRR!

[Felinity]

5. Pretty threatening if the Dems take control in November K&R

I'm glad that they didn't leave open an option to re-edit. Also happy to see the point about their willingness to throw $40 million away to get this on the air casting further doubt on their motives.

[jmowreader]

30. There's no way they could "re-edit" and get all the BS out

From what I've heard, this thing has hundreds of people in it, not counting extras. It cost them $40 million to make it, and it's six hours long. Add in the fact that ABC National and every ABC affiliate are forgoing six hours of revenue by broadcasting the movie without commercials, and you're looking at (sticks wet finger in the air) about a half-billion-dollar in-kind contribution to the Republican Party. Hmm...I feel a new thread coming on...

Today is September 7. The first installment of this shit is scheduled for release on September 10.

There is NO WAY that all of the lies could be removed from this program in three days. They need to COMPLETELY reshoot the show to get even a semblance of the truth in there. This would push the release date of the program to the sixth or seventh anniversary of 9/11--too late to do the RNC any good this year, when they need it desperately.

It's got to be pulled. There's no other option.

[femrap]

53. A GRACEFUL OUT....write Iger and remind

him of the 2003 movie about Reagan that was pulled. I believe it finally aired on HBO and then dvd.

It must be pulled. Otherwise, we need to organize a B O Y C O T T !

Has everyone emailed the FCC? Might as well get on the record. Remember, those airwaves belong to us...not Mickey, nor Goofy.

EDITED TO ADD IGER'S EMAIL: [e-mail]

[Duppers]

166. thanks, I just emailed Iger.

I told him in my email that if ABC doesn't take down this mini-series that there will be a
B O Y C O T T against Disney that will make the one the Southern Baptists organized look like a party.

[Ignacio Upton]

31. Ironically the point of this movie to to PREVENT us from

taking control. If we capture at least one house of Congress, we should look into revoking ABC's licenses.

[DirtyJersey]

156. At the risk of sounding stupid

I am new here, and I was wondering if somebody could be so courteous as to tell me what "K&R" means?

[TheMadMonk]

161. Kicked and recomended.

Kick = replying to the OP (original post) or a sub-thread to push the discussion to the top of its forum.

Recomended is a button just bellow the OP, which recomends the post for the greatest page. (requires at least 5)

K&R is doing both. (separate actions)

and while we're here. n/t = no text. (Heading only. No body)

[CatWoman]

6. Fucking

"A"

[MoonRiver]

7. WOW! SMACKDOWN!!

Go DEMOCRATS go!!! :bounce:

[BootinUp]

8. Go ahead.Make Our Day.

:mad:

[Rabrrrrrr]

9. THAT...... is fuckin' NICE!

Though they say it's the entire Democratic Leadership - is the entire Democratic Leadership just those five people? I had assumed "Democratic Leadership" meant all the Dems in the Senate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Not that I'm defending Disney...

but taking Disney to court's a bit like getting involved in a land war in Asia.

Well, here's hoping it works out.

:toast:

[aggiesal]

95. The FCC doesn't have to take them to court.

They only need to pull the license.
Disney would have to sue to get it back. This could cost them millions if not billions, depending on how long and hard the FCC fights just prove the point.

I'm sure the this shot across their bow, by the Dems, will have better aim after the Nov. elections.
LOL

[The Wizard]

190. With Bush

compromising the judiciary appointing extremist judges, any attempt at justice of, by and for the people will be hamstrung. The only thing that will work is millions of Americans in the streets demanding an end to the fascist dictatorship known as the Bush Administration followed by rescinding all edicts and appointments made by the illegal, immoral junta that seized power because some Supreme Court justices abused their positions and appointed the worst leader since Caligula. The name Busholini sounds more appropriate every time that second hand excuse for a human being opens his mouth. :rant:

[Tellurian]

201. Absolutely NOT!

The Bush Administration is waiting with baited breath for Civil War to break out in this country giving them the excuse to declare Martial Law suspending elections indefinitely.

The best remedy IS through the courts. Bill Clinton, The 9/11 Commission, The Senate and the Democratic Party are the Plaintiffs in this suit. They are the drivers in this fiasco, not the defendants!

[Wilber_Stool]

11. Well I'll be dipped in shit.

What a pleasent surprise. I guess they are alive.

[The_Casual_Observer]

12. This thing is being taken pretty seriously.

I doubt that Iger or anybody else over there was paying much attention to it before yesterday.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

13. Disney/ABC responds: "And your point is...??"

:sarcasm:

:evilgrin:

[zoeb]

14. veiled threats??

I didn't see that. I think Disney is to big of an entity to be scared by partisan letter writing. This needs a grass roots type boycott. I have already written my letters to ABC and Disney. How about the rest of you?

[Johnyawl]

17. grassroots??

Disney ignored a grassroots boycott organized by the Babtists and evangelicals for years. They'll ignore you just as easily.

This letter, on the other hand, carries real weight.

[zoeb]

33. such small patisan groups wouldn't have pull

i'm talking about the 49% that voted against Bush. Now that's gonna hurt the purse strings.

[liberaldemocrat7]

20. I have called Disney and WABC TV in NY

telling them I will not watch ABC starting now and also will not patronize Wendy's and Red Lobster, 2 GOP contributors and national ABC advertisers they might hide from the public by running the GOPaganda uninterrupted.

[zoeb]

34. Does a v-chip work for those channels too? I need some

advice on this. Anyone with a v-chip?

[Pacifist Patriot]

45. ABC Affiliate, ABC, Disney and Scholastic

I'm in the neighborhood. I've already told them my annual passes to Disney World will be Universal Studios passes from now on.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

89. Ditto.

Anyway, Disney World pissed me off when last month they made us stand in line for an hour an a half to get into one of their new rides, because, as they guy at the end of the line told us, "Shaq was here and they gave him and his group a special tour of the ride, so it took forty five minutes longer than the estimated time."

My four year old grandson is much more important to me than some stupid sports celebrity, and I bet they didn't even have to pay for a ticket.

[Peggy Day]

216. And, Universal Studios is kind enough to offer shade and

misters while you're waiting. I found it much better and shorter lines anyway.

[bobbolink]

55. I think it needs *everything*!

It is, afterall, about truth and our nation.

Something we're all concerned with, right?

Give 'em hell, Harry!

Give 'em hell, voters!

[wordpix]

63. I will be happy to boycott the LIARS who support BUSHCO! K&R!!

I want to read the whole letter before I respond. Thanks for the great idea.

[SOS]

18. Good work by Senate Dems

Kick

[BigBearJohn]

19. Best thing is to contact ABC's sponsors. Hit 'em where it counts.

[ShortnFiery]

21. Yes! Our Party's Leadership has finally found its backbone. :-) eom

[d---mad2]

78. DEMS FINALLY GOT BACKBONE----ABSOF------LUTELY AGREE

The question should be be, why would Disney who spent 40 million on this project, do it commercially free?

Was it financed by the GOP?

Or was Disney afraid of the backlash to its corporate buddies, who wanted to sponsor this film?

JUST CURIOUS

[SeattleGirl]

22. DAY-AM!!!!

Good for them! :applause:

[Generic Other]

24. Things Disney wants from Congress

Continued support for the copyright to their little mousie...renewal of their FCC license...
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

We may see a cave-in yet.

[eShirl]

32. ah yes, the "mickey mouse" copyright extension act

(a.k.a. the Sonny Bono copyright extension act)

wouldn't it be a shame if congress repealed that little fiasco...

[Hugin]

25. Yay!

Look! Look!

:D

[dogday]

26. Out fucking standing!!!! nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. Holy Fucking Shit Now THAT Is A Response!!!!!!!!!!

Whoa. Just whoa. Absolutely perfect response to this situation. I am in shock that our dem leadership are stepping up like this and taking this issue seriously. I'm incredibly thankful to them and hope they keep this pressure on!

The coolest thing about the veiled threats is that Disney just HAS to know that the Senate and or House may be controlled by Dems in a short period of time. That means they'll have some control to do something about this injustice when that time comes. Disney's gotta know that, and hopefully now they have something to fear.

Go Dems Go!!!!!!!

:bounce:

[Janice325]

28. WOW!

Maybe this is the kick in the butt and "call to arms" (figuratively speaking) that the Democratic leadership needed to jump start itself.
I'm impressed. I hope it does some good.
I hope Olbermann talks about this tonight on Countdown.
Thanks, kpete! :hug:
k&r

[David Zephyr]

35. I am stunned! Wow! The Democrats are back!

Stunned.

[TwentyFive]

36. BACKBONE! Check. n/t

[Turn CO Blue]

37. When I view a letter like this as "red meat", you know I must have

been starving for some robust language from the Dems for a long, long time.

Anyway, YUM! It was red meat to me! (smacking lips)

Looks like a certain group of leaders has been eating their Wheaties!

[savemefromdumbya]

38. This is it!

finally!

[chat_noir]

39. All that I can say is...

Flaming Text

[Straight Shooter]

40. That is a very well-crafted letter.

Filled with nuances. Nothing the GOP dreads more than nuances. Heh.

[patricia92243]

41. Just five democratic leaders? Very disappointing.

[blogslut]

42. 'm digging it.

Go Dems go. :)

[Greybnk48]

43. OH, snap!

I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like trouble if they do air it, even with so-called disclaimers.

[Pacifist Patriot]

44. *low wolf whistle* Um, wow, just wow.

[jazzjunkysue]

46. Hot Damn!!!! Thoser ma boys!!!! Woo Hoooo!!!

I feel represented. :hug:

[formercia]

47. Make my liberal friggin day!!

Now I know what to use for target practice. Disney stuff.

[adarling]

48. this is what took them so long to get out of their hole

and finally say something about the republican bull shit that is being played across this country like nero and the fiddle? my god people, well at least they are standing up for something right for a change :)

[Ignis]

49. Next step: Media blitz!

Wouldn't CBS, NBC, etc. love a chance to give Reid or Durbin a microphone and let them bash ABC?

Pressure, pressure, pressure--that's the name of the game.

[Melissa G]

50. Finally Dem Leadership does something!! Perhaps Election Reform

or at least monitoring and legal challenges might be next? Are you listening leadership????

[ProdigalJunkMail]

51. not that ABC is in the right...

no pun intended...but to threaten their broadcast license because they are going to show something that is not well received by the Democratic Party Leadership is just wrong. Talk about censorship...threatening to take their license because of this is as censorship as it gets, folks, and is not good for the Democratic Party or the nation. This letter was a huge mistake and will be used to accuse the Democratic Party of one of the things they most claim to be against...

Sorry, people, but this is wrong and will come down badly...

sP

[seabeyond]

56. presenting lies as truth and feeding it to our kids thru education

i think you are wrong

[ProdigalJunkMail]

60. sorry...but their is daily slant

on all channels on all stories. Either side can claim and probably prove bias. Dispute is a dangerous thing in this game...both sides can pull out 'facts'. This will backfire. Mark my words...

sP

[wordpix]

66. the issue is not slant, issue is the official 911 report findings vs. LIES

by ABC. Don't lose your focus on that.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

69. while that may be true...

it is still going to come down to a pissing match if this goes anywhere...and ABC will win.

sP

[seabeyond]

76. they may will win showing the movie. but they dont win.

this evening scholastic pulled out of putting htis into the school. that was my huge issue. that was a big issue. having children in the system, it is very big to me. scholastic pulledout. that alone is a win

[ProdigalJunkMail]

80. that is a much bigger win in the long run

for the country...can't argue with you there. All I am saying is that this threat on their license is a mistake. And a huge one at that.

sP

[GOTV]

198. They have not pulled out....

... they are just updating their material and they are doing to late to change any school plans.

Unless further changes have been made that I'm not aware of, we're still on the exact same path that we were on yesterday.

No real change.

[seabeyond]

74. this is NOT a slant. it is a LIE.

and it was being sent into our schools to teach to our children. it would be like teaching children there are 49 states.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

81. well...Texas claims to be a republic sometimes

;-)

I just don't see this threat as a smart move. I think there are serious public-perception issues here...and I would wager that I will be proven right.

sP

[seabeyond]

82. that is cute, and you are right.... on texas

hey, pulling the liscence..... i agree. i dont see it happening nor should it. guess i didn't read close enough to take such a threat out of what they wrote.

[Change has come]

144. but weren't they also going to be feeding this garbage to kids

until Scholastic caved?

[Coexist]

59. I couldn't disagree with you more.

This letter explains exactly WHY this letter needed to be written.

ABC and Disney were wrong on SO many levels with this one. The partisan premiering of it, the refusal to give advance copies to those it slanders, yet they could find the time to reassure the conservative bloggers that the changes they were making were "minor", the fact that they held back Fahrenheit 9/11 because of "political issues before an election" but forge ahead with this one.

This is NOT censorship. This is protecting yourself from a smear-job by those obviously in collusion with your political rivals - just before a MAJOR election.

I am GLAD they did this - and cheer them with the scotch I just poured myself after reading this thing of beauty.

KICK ASS AND TAKE NAMES, Democrats. Kick ass and take names.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

61. sorry...it will come down to a pissing contest

if this tries to go anywhere...and ABC will win. And the Dems will look like censors...it will be a bloodbath. Bookmark this thread and come back to it if a Democratic controlled congress tries to pull their broadcast license. Then you can see how right I am (rather how right I was).

sP

[Coexist]

64. it didn't seem to hurt the right when they had "The Reagans"

and "Fahrenheit" pulled.

It won't happen on this. Sorry - you are wrong.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

70. they may have 'had it pulled'

but they didn't go after their license...and if they had...they would have lost too. If the Dems go up against ABC after regaining the House and/or Senate this fall they will be in a huge hurt. You don't have to believe me now, but check back to this thread if the time comes...

sP

[wordpix]

83. ABC won't win if we get off our asses & help Dems win some races

geesh, don't be so gloomy---Tweety is talking about a "tsunami."

[blogslut]

84. No one is trying to pull anyone's license

The Democratic leaders are simply reminding ABC that their license is part of an agreement. They are operating under a public trust. Warning ABC that they are potentially breaking that trust by presenting a politically slanted program is not censorship. It's very possible that some of the material presented in this film is slanderous/libelous. Freedom of speech is one thing but ABC also has a responsibility to the public.

[aggiesal]

97. Well put! n/t

[Brian Stevens]

211. On a work of fiction that is based on a true story?

Bio pics and docu dramas does not represent a resposibillty to the public. Unless they have the characters say Fuck, shit, and have some woman show off her privates and boobs. As long as they follow that code, they can air almost anything they want. This is not a news show.

[xiamiam]

199. it is about time that propaganda is called out...from the tax payer

funded videos inserted into national news programs to journalists inserting their politics into nightly news....time to stop...the truth is good enough regardless of who is uncomfortable...just the truth...thats what we should be demanding...period...

[BootinUp]

94. The only people that will subscribe to your interpretation

are people who do not believe the 9/11 commission report is a factual document.

[D23MIURG23]

146. nonsense

This is propaganda and defamation. Making up devastating fictions about real people and selling them as truth is a tortuous offense. It is more difficult to sue over it if the people are public officials, however it is similarly unethical. If ABC wants to bring their enterprise beyond the line of ethical ambiguity right up to the boundaries of civil law then the Dems have a right to play hardball and make it hurt. Libel is not constitutionally protected free speech.

[orleans]

147. where in their letter does it threaten to take their license away?

i saw something on a rw blog that said that too. what am i not getting?

they are reminding disney/abc of "the communications act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest."

where are they threatening to revoke their license?

[D23MIURG23]

148. You can interpret that as a veiled threat.

They don't explicitly state any threat though.

[orleans]

165. (welcome to du) n/t

[Rex]

57. The Dems can see the RW propaganda and don't want a dictatorship.

Not so sure about Holy Joe, but go Dems go!!!! Make Disney sorry they ever tried to appease the BFEE!

[Bretttido]

68. I'd love to see where Traitor Joe stands on the issue.

[Rex]

71. Yes me too.

nt

[Ninja Jordan]

58. Disney better hope Dems don't take back Congress!

Muuuuuuahahahahahahahaha

[wordpix]

62. I got thru the first paragraph & I'm stunned!!! Way to go, Dem senators!

Love and kisses :loveya: :whoohoo:

[Bretttido]

65. Thank You Reid, Durbin, Stabenow, Schumer and Dorgan!

[Canuckistanian]

67. The ball's in ABC's court now.

They can always say that this has become too controversial, they didn't realize the show was so biased, inaccurate, etc., etc.

If ABC goes ahead with this, we'll know what kind of a country this is.

[wordpix]

85. what will Katie Courac do with this on CBS? I'm wondering. She's no KO

[Canuckistanian]

I think that's fairly obvious after today's guest

Cutie Couric has chosen her side....

[bliss_eternal]

72. I'm thrilled for once they have our backs!

Go Dems, Go!!!

[Imagevision]

73. What is Disney thinking?? - Walt wouldn't have condoned this!!

[countmyvote4real]

90. Actually, he might.

http://www.skewsme.com/nazi.html

http://www.spitfirelist.com/f301.html

[Rabrrrrrr]

98. Walt wouldn't blame Clinton, he'd blame someone Jewish.

:7

[senseandsensibility]

77. Is the emphasis (boldface type) yours?

Thank for posting this. Has it been reported on the corporate news? I boycott them, so I don't know.

[nicknameless]

79. Hmm... I'm not seeing any real threat of legal reprisals.

Telling them that their reputation will be tarnished is too weak. They don't care, and neither will the "backwash".

This film is slanderous. Where are the cease and desist lawsuits?

[D23MIURG23]

151. There is still a few days left.

At the rate this is picking up it could happen. That letter is about as far as it is possible to go without actually threatening or suing so it should be interesting to see where this goes from here.

[nicknameless]

159. Only a few more days left.

Many of those being slandered have legal backgrounds.
They should have no trouble spelling out the negative consequences in stronger terms.
And YES, pursue the necessary actions to halt this uninterrupted, hours-long LIE FEST.



BTW, welcome to DU, D23MIURG23. :)

[autorank]

86. This should stop it and get people fired. If I'm on the board I'm having

a major shit fit right now. "How the Hell did this happen?" I think logically that I have
responsibility for the stewardship of the company and if, under my stewardship, the damn
company loses its license, I'm frigging liable. "!!!How the Hell did this happen? Somebody's
head is going to roll, as many as I can find responsible for letting this happen!!!"

This is the more aggressive thing I've seen come out of congress directed at a private corporation
based on a political smear. They're saying that ABC is in cahoots with the ultra right (duh) to use
$40 million dollars for partisan propaganda and to infect the minds of children to boot. The $40
million is therefore an illegal campaign contribution, not a business expense, which turns it into
a tax case. More importantly, it turns the whole enterprise into a "conspiracy" to break the law,
as in RICO.

Make no mistake about it, on this issue, we've got leaders united with a lot of spine. I'm totally
impressed.

Give 'em Hell everybody!!!


On edit: Walt Disney, the founder of it all, was very right wing politically, very nasty
stuff he supported. This is just a return to form for them.

[truedelphi]

141. Reading my mind again, Auto

And once again expressing the ideas better than I could

[file83]

149. You are EXACTLY correct on the point this is an illegal campaign...

...contribution of $40 million. It might even be more than that - the cost of production was $40 million, but cost of lost ad revenue would easily double that figure.

[Rainscents]

87. Bout time!

WOW!!! :bounce:

[malaise]

88. Now that is serious

Go Dems!!

[ignatius 2]

91. Wow, it looks like the Democratic senators are finally seeing the way to

play ball with the repugs is with a hard ball. Way to go ladies and gents, now don't back down at all, in fact come back harder and stronger. Show the repug bullies that we have damned well had enough of their crap!

[Crunchy Frog]

92. Thank you Dems for finally standing up.

Please keep doing it. Please follow through on this.

[ThomWV]

93. Sell Short On Disney When We Win In November

Make yourself some money.

[KT2000]

96. This is why I like Reid

He can land a punch when he wants to!
This was good and a boost to all of us.

[yojon]

99. Hmmm.. vertebrate dems!

Would you look at that :-)

[Brian Stevens]

100. Though it turns my stomach saying this,

As they were right to send the letter, but threatening Sanctions is unconstitutional, as this is congress making law against free speech.

[Recursion]

107. How so?

Congress is not required to let just any jackass who wants to say something broadcast it on the public airwaves for next to nothing.

[Brian Stevens]

180. Congress MUST stay out of it

This is a legal issue for the courts, not congress. Through Reid, unfortunately, congress is interfering in free speech. If a repug threatened sanctions against CBS for airing The Reagans, you would feel the same way. The difference between Path To 9/11 and Reagans is no legislator ever threatened sanctions. Yes, speak out against it, but DO NOT, under ANY circumstances, threaten any sort of legislation, sanctions et al, toward a film, book, or any other entertainment medium because you disagree or find flaws in it.

[Recursion]

193. I just want to make sure I understand here

Your claim is that the current licensers of broadcast bandwidth have some sort of absolute right to that bandwidth, and Congress would be wrong to engage in oversite of that?

[TheMadMonk]

170. Libel is NOT free speech. n/t

[Brian Stevens]

171. I know how you feel and I agree

But libel is up to the courts to decide, not goverment. Having sanctions against ABC is goverment repression and clear violation of free speech. If they have a problem with this, they should litigate in federal court. Sanctions will not be good for our side.

[smartvoter]

101. wow. The dems are growing teeth. nt

[bonito]

102. I posted this on my orlando craigslist today

here is an earlier post from du today http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2072711 Lets be unrelentless and leave no dry powder behind!

[Sonnabend]

103. This is censorship

..and I dont approve.I find it a VERY bad precedent to set..."do as we say or we pull your licence"

I want to see this film and judge for myself.

Am I the only one to see a 1st amendment issue here?

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

110. Oh please

See it on DVD in your house, not on my public airwaves. As far I'm concerned, ABC now stands for Always Buttkiss Conservatives.

[Recursion]

111. How does the 1st amendment apply?

They aren't saying the speech is illegal, they're saying the public shouldn't have to subsidize it by letting it be broadcast for free over public airwaves. ABC has every right to play whatever movie they want, and Congress has every right to look at that and decide that their broadcast license is no longer in the public interest.

[Sonnabend]

114. The threat is:show the movie and we go after your licence

The stated goal is: dont let the film be shown.

My stance:I will decide for myself what I see and dont see, and no one INCLUDING THE DEMS has any right to say otherwise. This is BLACKMAIL.

[Recursion]

120. Fine. I want a free broadcasting license like ABC has too

And if Congress doesn't give it to me, they're censoring me, right?

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

123. Can I have one, too?

I've got a pack of lies and bullshit I'd like to spread.

[Brian Stevens]

172. Let the courts decide that

Not goverment.

[Recursion]

194. Well, let me just be clear here

Are you claiming that ABC's right to public airwaves is somehow protected by the Constitution? I had never considered that before, and I would like to understand why you think that.

[Brian Stevens]

210. ABC is a business

They make money through advertising. This situation is about libel not public airwaves. You didn't see the FCC come down on CBS after the repugs went ballistic on Bush AWOL story Dan Rather did. Not even a sanction as well. The Path To 9/11 is like all other docu dramas and bio pics, none of them are totally 100% true. That's why it says "Based On A True Story". And for congress to invoke sanctions against a business because it is airing an almost true story is unconstitutional. There is an easy way to solve this, that is a disclaimer at the beginning of the film. Sure there are decorums that must be met, and from what was said, no hard cursing or nudity is shown in the film. Just because a few lies are being told, it is up to the audience to judge. And if Reid and Clinton has a problem with it, take it to court and don't make it into a legislative issue.

To respond to the bandwidth issue, they license to ABC's affilliates. If you wanna do something about it, don't buy the products that advertise on ABC.

BTW, think about the good things ABC has done. Ellen DeGeneres as the first openly gay person to be the lead in her show, American Bandstand, and others.

[file83]

152. Did you even think before you came to that conclusion?

:shrug:

It isn't "censorship" when you are trying to prevent a great harm to the nation from occuring.

They aren't saying Disney can't distribute the movie through other means, just not over publicly liscensed airwaves and to public schools. Considering the gross misrepresentations in this movie they are advertising to the public as FACTS and so close to an election while simultaneously indicating they will give the movie away for free (no commercials will be shown during the airing of the show), none of this gives you pause?

This is a completely unique situation considering how sensitve the American Public is to the 9/11 event.

In short, it's a gross attempt of propaganda with the aim of revisionist history to sway national elections. That is Un-American.

[D23MIURG23]

154. Nonsense

Defamation isn't protected by the constitution. It is a civil offense to commit libel, end of story.

[tabasco]

104. I commend them.

It is time to stop the fascist takeover of the Nation.

[Sonnabend]

106. So you endorse censorship

and abrogation of the First Amendment?

What's next....stopping an investigation documentary on corruption simply because the target is a Democrat?

Does DU stand for free speech or for speech only when it suits their agenda?

[bonito]

109. Did you just wake up?

we have been under the pnac agenda for 6 years! open your eyes for Gods sake.

[Brian Stevens]

174. Don't mean to sound dumb.

But what is the pnac?

[babylonsister]

191. PNAC Primer; check out the signatures, check out their

concept of world domination, then weep.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

And this old thread explains it all:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=939775

[tabasco]

115. Libel is not protected speech under the First Amendment.

There is no such thing as censorship of libel, genius.

Brave culture warrior!

Why don't you follow this link and get in a real war, coward?

www.goarmy.com

[D23MIURG23]

157. Thank you

I'm sick of seeing this censorship crap on this board. Its about time someone pointed that out.

[Coexist]

119. Free speech and slander are two different things:

nice try, though.

http://www.answers.com/topic/freedom-of-speech
"Although speech is freer in the United States than in many societies, federal and state laws do restrict many kinds of expression. Some kinds of speech regarded as damaging to individual interests (e.g., libel and slander) are limited primarily by the threat of tort action; other forms of speech (e.g., obscenity) are restricted by law because they are regarded as damaging to society as a whole. Speech that is regarded as disruptive of public order has long been beyond protection (e.g., “fighting words” that cause a breach of the peace or false statements that cause general panic). The government also limits speech that threatens it directly; although sedition laws are rarely prosecuted in the United States, such rationales as a danger to “national security” have been invoked to silence criticism of or opposition to the government. Laws designed to silence opposition to organized religion (e.g., laws against blasphemy or heresy), common in some other countries, would run afoul of the First Amendment."

[seabeyond]

125. it would have to go thru the courts correct?

just as it would if albright were to sue them. and what person wouldnt have the right to sue if they were protrayed in a totally false manner, absolutely no truth to it on something as huge as the life and death of 3000

with it going thru court then our judges would decide if it was warranted to pull the liscence, though i dont think that is what they are threatening. and if it were the case that this movie truly does not pass muster then it is as it should be. just as there are penalties for saying fuck on tv. i think they are reminding them of their massive responsiblity and heavy duty obligation to this society they are fortunate enough to enjoy

and in the meantime we have had our media taken over by a group as bad as any republican govt controlled govt having already lost exactly what you are talking about with this administration.

[truedelphi]

143. Usually in this day and age

Any media group, no matter how big or how small, is worried to death over the idea of slander and
libel issues. Before any producer agrees to go with a project, they want the BIG QUESTION answered - Is there anyway anyhow that anyone can go after me if I go with this project.

It says a lot about how much this country's values have eroded that ABC had the arrogance to
go ahead on this. I'm hoping that their misjudgement now blows up on their collective faces.

They have tarnished a valuable product, in many citizens' minds for a long time. I was planning on taking my new granddaughter to Disneyland someday - now it will not happen unless HELL freezes over and George Bush and Cheney turn into a block of salt.

[PinkyisBlue]

145. Here's some free speech!

Let ABC show, without commercial interruptions, Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" the night after "Pathways to 9/11". Sounds pretty fair, right? Unfortunately, it would never happen, because ABC and Disney have an agenda and the truth ain't part of the plan.

You sound like you've been listening to too much Rush.

[Borgnine]

105. Pink tutus BE GONE!

Don't underestimate the effect the Lieberman primary defeat had on the Democratic leadership. This is what we've been missing for six years.

[Pastiche423]

108. Hot Damn!

Color me pleasantly surprised!

K & R!

[Sonnabend]

112. I dont buy into PNAC or other CT garbage

Never have and never will.

Nice straw man there...care to answer my question instead?

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

113. The PNAC is real

Maybe do some reading before you post.

[Sonnabend]

116. I know its real:Ive seen the website.

The conspiracy theories aren't. Not listening to it. Dont believe it.

Whats next..watch out for the Smoking Man? Alien coverups?

Puh-leeze...

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sonnabend]

121. So Im a Rushbot

because I dont buy into PNAC? What...dont I have the right to decide for myself what I believe and what I dont?

And not believing in PNAC is a RW talking point?? Says who?

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

122. I'd love it if you had the right

...but your pResident and his ABC minions want to spoonfeed you more lies and distortions.

[Sonnabend]

126. You havent answered my point

Lets put it another way..what I believe, or don't believe, is none of your damned business.

If I dont buy into the PNAC stuff that is my concern, my right, it is not a RW talking point, it is a simple statement of fact.Deal with it. Or not as you choose.

Either way, not my problem.

[Recursion]

127. I'm not sure what you mean by you "don't believe in PNAC"?

I mean, do you "not believe in Spain"? or "beryllium"? The existence of the Project for a New American Century is a matter of public record.

They even have an official website.

Or is your point that you don't think they are as influential as some CTers claim?

[Sonnabend]

128. Dimesg:I know PNAC exists

Acknowledged...I've seen the website, I've read some of the details.

I do NOT buy into some of the bizarre CT commentaries I have seen.

[bonito]

130. I'll send you a copy of their white papers if you like

Just to help you along with current events.

[Sonnabend]

133. No thanks

I can do my own research..which will NOT include the Sept 11 forum.I know how to use a library thanks...and a computer.

[bonito]

135. Excellent!

With so much smoke out there, its the only way. Peace

[El Fuego]

205. It's not a matter of what you "believe in"

PNAC = "Project for a New American Century." Their plan for U.S. imperial dominance is clearly outlined in their publication "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which you can get off their web site. And wrote this document? Go to the last page and see. Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby et al. THE NEOCONS.

The PNAC IS the RW. It exists and is actively molding U.S. foreign policy whether you believe in it or not.

[seabeyond]

132. i keep looking at post 108 trying to figure out your reply

how does hot damn have anything to do with pnac. or color me surprised??????? i am confused. what is this rant about pnac please

[TheMadMonk]

175. If this is protected free speech, then ...

labeling you anything from Rushbot to wifebeater in a public forum is also protected free speech.

Since such is not the case, then you must also agree that presenting demonstrable lies in a manner likely to be taken as fact does not fall under the heading of protected free speech either.

Further, there are sanctions under the law for making such false claims. For most, these come in the form of financial and/or custodial penalties. In this case, the letter is a fairly gentle reminder, that for a broadcaster, there is another penalty available if they knowingly and deliberatly present falsehoods in a manner likely to be contrary to the public interest.

And the final decision on the invocation of such a penalty would be down to the appropriate regulatory body, the FCC and not the legislative arm of goverment, even though the latter might petition the former to act.

[xiamiam]

200. ha ha ha ha ha.. ha ha ha ha...nt

[TomPaine2]

124. It will HURT Bush & Repubs

In the end, it will focus attention on Bush's & the Repub-led Congress' record of incompetence & failure in dealing with the terrorism threat, both pre-9/11 and since. Bush didn't try to hit bin Laden with so much as a pea shooter prior to 9/11, not even when CIA/FBI officially held bin Laden responsible for Cole bombing. Bush & Repub Congress still have not passed a bill to mandate security for chemical plants & chemical tanks on rails & roads. A powerful rifle, an armor piercing bullet, and the wind blowing in the right direction is all a terrorist needs to kill thousands in many cities, & with Repubs' lax gun laws & enforcement, they could probably get them at a gun show.

[McCamy Taylor]

131. Wow! Democratic solidarity!

[grytpype]

134. This is a very heavyweight response.

As much as I despise the Republican lie machine, I think this is a very heavy handed action. There are First Amendment rights involved here.

[seabeyond]

136. they cant just pull it can they? it would have to go thru a court

and be proven that the film was that bad correct? there are rules in broadcasting that are up for punishment

[Cobalt Violet]

137. K & R.

[AZBlue]

138. My Dems? Growing a backbone??

It's like buttah! I'm all verklempt!

Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic.
The Moral Majority is neither moral nor a majority.
Discuss.

[AtomicKitten]

163. completely off topic

Linda Richman on Barbra: "Oy God. She's a pistil in my scheinel ponnum. A scheina cup. Mitin drinin dura hommelginnum homelmitzvah etzel betzel tookel hyam yenkel sem out my kyahh."

On edit and on topic: Is that a backbone you're growing or are you just happy to see me?

[AZBlue]

213. LMAO!

Ooooh....I needed that this afternoon!

[SammyWinstonJack]

139. Woo fucking Hoo!

Rock on! :bounce:

[Harper_is_Bush]

142. Your title is very misleading.

But then this isn't LBN, so you're entitled to bend the truth I guess.

[otohara]

150. Well Actually, It's John @ Americablog's Title

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/senate-democratic-leadership-threatens.html

[Harper_is_Bush]

215. Ah. HIS title is misleading then! thx. n/t

[neuvocat]

153. This is just what the GOP needs right now:

proof that the democrats haven't been soft on terrorism at all.

[Hardrada]

155. Joseph LIEberman (FU- Connecticut) stands behind ABC

100%. "We have to watch this here or we will have to watch it over there...somewhere."

[Peggy Day]

160. I want the fairness doctrine back! This reminds me that we are

being screwed on a daily basis.

[usefletch]

162. Censorship is alive and well I see

So only Republicans spew propaganda? Well both side of the isle do that. The issue here is censorship. Since when do we look at TV and see anything but mindless entertainment. No one seemed to call for Michaels Moore's movie to banned from theaters, just calls not to watch it. You have to be careful what you ask for. Such as 'All movies that I don't agree with should be banned'. Get a life. The fact that the US was asleep at the switch about terrorism since 1983 (my awareness began then). We finally started fighting them and now everyone seems to be ready to pack it up. If we hadn't done anything for 2 decades, why not give action a chance for the same amount of time. Instant gratification seems to be the main cause. But as I always say, just because you are an idiot does not mean you can't prove it as often as you like. (As long as you are not inciting violence). Censorship never works, I am surprised Democrats (I am a registered Democrat) would ever advocate this.

[EFerrari]

177. Richard Clarke disagrees with you. You might want to read his book.

And George Bush's terror policies have made us reviled around the world -- which put us more at risk. Oh, and he invaded the wrong country. That didn't help.

Disney did try to block the distribution of Moore's film AND it was denounced on the Senate floor even though that film didn't defame anyone.

[BootinUp]

203. The issue is how they are representing it as based on the

9/11 Commission Report. And its not censorship, its a warning to not skew elections with clearly misleading 4 hour shows about a national tragedy. They can certainly broadcast it and then deal with the consequences later if they chose to.

[Liberty Belle]

164. Please picket at Disneyland and Disney World!

CA and FL Democrats - can you get daily protests organized and handout flyers to every visitor entering the park or its lots? This would certainly get their attention in a hurry!

[flyarm]

168. thank you all at Du that have worked so hard to get this stopped!

and Thank You to our dem reps who have stood up against this propaganda...

my co-workers were killed that day..and many from my hometown of Middletown Nj lost their lives that day..

my neighbor lost her son who was killed by my airlines aircraft hitting the wtc...

i just sat with her yesterday..and the pain in her eyes can not be described..

if some network or movie company wants to tell the truth.,.even though it is hard on many of us,.we can somehow handle the truth..

but these bold faced lies are so disrespectful..to those who lost their lives that fateful day..

we must all be the voices for those who have no voice any longer..and we must respect them and their families..

would we want any less for our loved ones or ourselves, or our families??

i think not..

i thank you for fighting this..

i have typed so much today my hands ache sending out this information all over the country to get this stopped..but that is nothing compared to the pain and anguish of the families who lost loved ones and what they have dealt with.

please don't stop calling ABC..and don't let up..

we can get this stopped..and we must..

if we can not as a nation, cherish the memories of those who lost their lives on 9/11..then what the hell kind of a society have we become?

if we can sit back and allow the politicization in an evil way ,of those who lost their lives on a beautiful sunny crisp September day on the 11th of September 2001..than who are we as a nation??

i would say i hate these people for this movie..but i refuse to hate them..because that is what evil wants us to do..but i do have resolve to see this stopped ..for my co-workers..and for my neighbors..and from my hometown.

this does nothing to heal..this just tears us further apart..and then the evil in this white house cabal wins by their hate, and their lies and their killing of human life....and then terrorism wins..internal and external.. by us hating...

please keep up the fight and thank you DU'ERS!!

fly

[Brian Stevens]

173. Hate is a natural emotion

There are 2 different kinds of hate

1. Ignorance hate: racism, homophobia, sexism, anti semitism, etc. These types of hate is irresponsible.

2. Hate against igorance hate as I described, Hitler, KKK, Bush, censorship, etc. These are understandable and must be fought by every and all means, period. We are at a low key war in this country, Flyarm.

[EFerrari]

178. If you look at New Orleans, you see that it's not all that low key. n/t

[Brian Stevens]

179. And it's gonna get a whole lot worse!

[cyclezealot]

169. I like it when we take the media on.

I recall protests in San Diego. They did not march to the Federal Building put to the Fox news station. I think that a great idea.
Anyone want to hang out at the ABC affiliate on Sept 11 with signs, etc.
One thing we do not demand, public accountability of OUR airwaves. Things we could do to challenge our rotten media. How about represent our feelings at the FCC, when they have to renew their licenses.

[Raine]

176. They better heed the warning

a change in November is going to bode ill for them if they proceed with this shit.

[shockra]

181. I think there is more to this.

They knew this film stunt was too personal. That it would infuriate Democrats and key players in the Clinton Administration. A "clash of the titans" over who is to blame for 9/11 is an excellent way to get everyone riled and distract from something bigger, like they MIHOP. Bushies would never believe such a thing, and Democrats will be too busy defending Clinton and his record to remember that is a possibility at all.

Ironically, a few days ago I decided I was going to read The New Pearl Harbor to mark this anniversary. I've been able to believe all the shit Repubs have pulled so far with no problem. Except for the MIHOP theory about 9/11. With all the suspicious things that occurred that day, I could believe they LIHOP, but it was just far too depressing, and mindboggling to seriously consider the idea that it was an Inside Job. Well, after just the last couple days my opinion is really swinging that way. They want to focus people's minds on Clinton Administration "failings" in 9/11 to redirect moral outrage (on both sides), before such a thing as MIHOP can take hold in the public imagination. A Clinton controversy is then what people will continue to remember when they think of 9/11, which short circuits ever thinking more deeply about what the Bush Adminstration's involvement really was.

And Bin Laden will remain the central bad guy (who Clinton should have stopped!)

I don't think it's ever what it really looks like, with these guys. If it looks like they're afraid of Democrats winning a majority in Congress, it's really more than that. They already run absolutely everything else. That they could really be *afraid* of such a thing is almost laughable. But it suits their purpose that we'd think that's their main motive for this "film."

[DWilliamsamh]

182. WOW! "Free License"

How many times did they mention the exchange of the "free license" to use the public air waves, and tie it to the responsibility to act in the public interest as a trustee? License is a privilege - not a right. I am old enough to remember when broadcasters actually notified the public when they were coming up on renewal of their broadcast license and acknowledged that a part of the "deal" was to provide a public service. They actually broadcast an "invitation" to contact them and the FCC if viewers had concerns regarding any dereliction of this public interest provision of their license.

Methinks Disney has been put on notice that if the FCC receives a massive amount of letters of concern, the rubber stamp may just be put in a desk drawer when it comes time to renew the broadcast licenses of their corporate owned stations.

Can you imagine what it would be like if ABC was only available on cable with the same status as Faux?

We shall see.....


Oh and "HI BRIT!!!"

[StrictlyRockers]

183. Democrats with a spine! Kick Disney in the nuts for this one. Boycott!

Kick them hard!

[donheld]

186. Dems showing some spine WHOOOOHOOOO

bout time.

[Voltaire99]

187. "they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power"

Heh. Like what--bigger campaign contributions?

Dream on. It's preposterous to imagine the Dems doing anything about anyone's broadcast license, let alone that of a juggernaut like Disney.

Try to remember: you're talking about the party that cravenly helped pass the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which led to historic consolidation under big media.

Signed, of course, by none other than the Big Dawg.

[Vinca]

188. It wouldn't be a bad idea to look into taxing the so called

church organizations involved in the funding of this venture either. Enough is enough.

[Peggy Day]

217. This smacks of campaign donations-in a new way nt

[focusfan]

189. you know I think Bush made a donation to abc

and thats why this documentery crap is wrong and misleading.he
is so scared he will lose congress in November. 

[minnesota_liberal]

192. My letter

Robert A. Iger
President and CEO, The Walt Disney Company

Dear Mr. Iger:

Those who are both familiar with the actual events leading up to the attacks of 9/11 and have seen previews of "The Path to 9/11" report that it contains key factual inaccuracies.

A program claiming to be historical in nature and which has been marketed as "Based on the 9/11 Commission report" should be as true to history as possible.

I am concerned that such a program, aired only 8 weeks prior to a major election, could affect voters' perceptions of history and affect said election.

If this happens, ABC and its parent company will have effectively conspired to influence an election.

Please correct these errors or reconsider your plan to air this program.

Thank you.

[npincus]

197. contact address, please?

good letter. Is there a list anywhere of whom to write and where to complain about this travesty?

[minnesota_liberal]

214. contact info (links)

email campaigns
http://pol.moveon.org/abcdoc/
http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/dontdistort911/

affiliate contact info
http://thinkprogress.org/abcaffiliates

[freebrew]

207. I wonder why...

with tongue planted firmly in cheek, they decided NOT to use the facts.
Why they obviously distorted history to present a story that didn't happen.
Would it have been that difficult to make a REAL documentary and present the facts that are truly known about the road to 9/11?

I hope Mr. Iger chokes on the responses he gets from all of us and the rest of the country for becoming involved in this blatant propaganda that seems to shift the blame from weasel+dick to Clinton.

Anyone that calls himself a republican must surely lie in shame from all of the actions of their leaders these last 12 years.

[npincus]

196. Slam dunk!

[The Stranger]

202. Someone grab Dick Durbin before he runs outside to scream apologies.

[nnyvet]

204. I find this to be the same type of censorship that we are fighting

against each and every day. The networks broadcast something every day that upsets the beliefs of one group or another. When the Ronald Reagan documentary was set to be broadcast by CBS, it was an outcry from conservatives and the threat to the sponsors that made them back down. Why can't we do the same thing and contact the sponsors of ABC and tell them that we, 1/2 of the country, do not want to see this broadcast and that if ABC shows it, we will spend our money elsewhere?

[TahitiNut]

206. Under such agonized 'reasoning,' slander, libel, and false advertsing

... are all "censored" under the laws. Let's be clear. NOBODY has the power to PREVENT ABC/Disney from broadcasting this fable, absent a restraining order from a court. What you're asserting is equivalent CENSORSHIP of those who're petitioning ABC/Disney with their grievances. Are these Senators to be prohibited from writing such grievances into a letter?

"Free Speech" INCLUDES the right to dissent, oppose, and petition ... and claiming that such oppostion is "censorship" is sheer poppycock.

[mnhtnbb]

208. Headline NYTimes 9/9: DEM LEADERSHIP GROWS BALLS!

[Imagevision]

209. Note to Disney: it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

Simply stating that some scenes may be ficticious is a slap in the face to all americans

[Kurovski]

212. Kick!(nt)