Randi's Rant: On "Path" Censorship;"It's Not Censorship If It's Defamatory

[orleans]

Randi’s Rant 9/8/06 on Path to 9/11

(caller says he doesn’t like the idea of censorship for the film)

Randi: “Let’s get really clear on this. It’s not censorship if it’s defamatory, slanderous, or libelous, and going in they know that it is. That’s not free speech. We have rules and laws in this country that say that you cannot use the public airwaves for your own political purposes unless you paid a fee, declared who you were representing (this ad was paid for by…) and that you paid a fee to be on the public airwaves, and that it must be clearly identified as being a commercial. Can’t do it any other way.

"This is gonna be a two day commercial for the republicans using defamatory language, slander and libel, in order to make people angry at the previous administration on whose watch we were not attacked. So that should never be okay with the American people.

"Look at the Reagan thing--that was a thing about a past president and it was offensive to republicans. Now, it didn’t have to do with a national tragedy, it didn’t have to do with an attack on this nation, it was a political figure who the republicans did not like--they didn’t like the light Ronald Reagan was being shown in. So they used their free speech rights to lobby for their desire to not have it air on the public airwaves. And they were successful. It was not aired on the public airwaves. It did air on Showtime. But Showtime is a paid subscription; it’s not the public airwaves and so people had to pay to have Showtime and it aired there without commercials and that was that.

" This is on the public airwaves without commercials which means it is indeed a commercial, and it’s propaganda because they know before airing it that they got the facts wrong and it’s not about a political person--it’s about a tragedy that affected every single American. It’s quite a different thing.

"I don’t know why people can’t realize that it would be equivalent to running a movie, without commercials, on the public airwaves, saying that the Holocaust never happened, and endeavoring to “prove” that it never happened. That would never fly. "

[helderheid]

1. recommended

[Lone_Star_Dem]

2. She's 100% correct!

K&R

This fact need to be driven home!

[Brian Stevens]

3. Randi is mostly right

"Now, it didn’t have to do with a national tragedy, it didn’t have to do with an attack on this nation, it was a political figure who the republicans did not like--they didn’t like the light Ronald Reagan was being shown in. So they used their free speech rights to lobby for their desire to not have it air on the public airwaves."

The difference is, and as sickening as it sounds, give credit where it's due. The repugs didn't use legislation to remove The Reagans from CBS. I know I am gonna get flamed off of this. But I don't want goverment controlling what I want to air through the legislative process. As long as standards of decency is in order, then ABC is within the law. If not, then take it to legal standpoints. But Reid threatened legislative sanctions, which is unconstitutional. I love Sen. Reid, but he is on the wrong in this one. Nobody's perfect though.

[intheflow]

4. Good rant, Randi.

As usual. K&R
:kick:

[RandiRhodesArchives]

5. YOU GO GIRL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wonder if this put her on the "ex" Clear Channel ceo's radar at AAR?!

[orleans]

6. but wait, there's more

i'm putting up "rant 2" on a thread, check it out.

[SofaKingLiberal]

7. .

:kick:

[BootinUp]

8. Hence why they are editing it.

to remove the defamatory parts.

Randy needs to talk about the responsibility that goes along with an FCC broadcast license and how a partisan writer and director have created a movie that is not balanced even if it is edited. Secondly that ABC should be free to market it in other ways ( not as a 5 hour commercial free piece on Network television ).

[helderheid]

9. I just sent this to someone on my list