Bullshit. The whole POINT of the letter writing campaign is to prevent ME and others like ME from seeing this film. Or are you arguing that the letter writers are writing so that they themselves will not be able to see the film? Because the only point of blocking the film is to prevent OTHERS from seeing it … presumably the conservatives who are fronting the campaign would never go see it themselves.
It may be legal, but it sure as hell isn’t about free speech, it’s about preventing free speech. That’s the whole spirit of the campaign. It’s about trying to intimidate theater owners. It sucks. It sucks on ice. And if you had an ounce of objectivity here, you’d be able to admit that.
Bullshit yourself. The letter writing itself does not prevent you from seeing the film. The whole point of the letters is to attempt to dissuade the theater owner from showing the film through an appeal to his bottom line.
Perhaps you can explain the mechanism by which you believe the letters perevent you from seeing the film. Because I’m very puzzled how this can happen. You are ignoring the critical event in this chain where the actual decision—the decision which required to prevent the film’s showing—is being made. Whadday think, that when some critical mass of letters reaches the mailroom, it triggers a cancel order in the delivery chain? There’s a person, or persons, making a conscious decision of whether onr not to show the film. And that person, or those persons, ain’t the letter writers.
It is most certainly not a prevention of free speech. The letters are an exercise of free speech. That you oppose this means that you, too, can now proudly wear the label of “enemy of free speech.”
I am not against that. It’s their theatre, if they are not contractually bound, they may show whatever films they want.
I believe it is within the confines of the law. However, I accept that all that is legal is not necessarily inherently right for its legality.
Yes.
That having been said, Evil Captor has singled out the issue clearly. Those who participate in this letter-writing campaign are not looking out for the theatre owner’s best interest, they are trying to prevent a film they see as objectionable from being played.
As you have pointed out, this is indeed within their rights. I think, however, that it is a misuse of their rights. They are using their right to protest in order to prevent the flow of information. Censorship. This isn’t a worthy cause such as desegregation, women’s suffrage, banning shoddy children’s products, etc…
I do not claim to be the judge of that which is worthy, but I sincerely hope I am not alone in thinking censorship is a foul idea.
I agree that there may be big questions about the morality of boycotts, but they are the only way to vote that matters to giant corporations…with/without our money. The same could be said of a current movement within politically correct gay groups to boycott Virginia and products made there.
As for the 9/11 movie, I plan on seeing it. I enjoy Michael Moore’s work and I agree with alot of his political leanings. As other right wing commentators do to the leftist side of politics, Moore exposes the hypocracy of the current administration. Anyone with a clear centrist train of thought can certainly see that.
So? Are people exercising their right to free speech compelled to do so out of altruism? People, and groups people, of every ideological stripe exercise free speech rights over the most narrow and trivial of interests unceasingly. If this is done within the confines of the law, then there is absolutely no basis for objection by an ostensible ideological opponent. After all, the same means for expression and persuasion are open to everyone.
As for your objections on censorship grounds, here’s a working definition of censorship: The action of preventing material that a party considers objectionable from circulating within a system of communication over which that party has some power.
The letter writers have no power over the theater screen; only the owner holds that power. They (the letter writers) are unable to make a single decision regarding what is shown there. Your objections, on the basis of censorship fail the litmus test of power. Just a rjung’s objections on the basis of coercion fail the litmus test of force.
In any case, since you have answered in the affirmative to the three conditions I set forth, I will unconditionally retract that label I pasted on you. I just think you need to find supportable basis for objecting to this letter writing campaign.
To play UncleBeer’s little game: yes, yes, and yes.
But to steal a page from Evil Captor, the actions themselves may follow the letter of the law, but they sure as hell don’t follow the spirit.
Imagine this, Unc: if I gather a bunch of big, burly, nasty-looking guys, equip them with baseball bats, then spend election day hanging around your neighborhood with T-shirts that read “I hate people who vote for Bush,” this would be acceptable by your own logic. After all, there’s nothing illegal about being out in public, is there? Just because some folks might feel intimidated and decide not to vote isn’t my problem; after all, we’re obeying the letter of the law…
It violates the implicit “Don’t be an asshole” rule for a free and open society.
Like I said, I believe it is a misuse of their rights. For instance, I have a right to own a firearm but I don’t have a right to shoot someone. If I were to shoot someone, it would be a misuse, or illegal use, of my right to own a firearm. Now, I’m not equating what Move America Forward is doing with murdering, I just thought the example was apt.
If the letter writers succeed in convincing a theatre owner not to show Moore’s film, they are exercising a degree of control over what is shown in that theatre (provided that the theatre owner was planning on showing the film before receiving the letters, which is a fair assumption).
Ultimately, however, the decision does lie with the owner. But take this example: I take my gun (which I have a legal right to have) and hold it to someone’s head and say “Bark like a dog or I’ll shoot you!” Ultimately, the decision to bark like a dog or not lies with the person the command is directed at, but as I have a gun to his head I certainly have a great deal of influence over his decision making process and that is a form of coercion (at least according to my online dictionary*)
Once again, I’m not saying the letter writers are threatening violence (at least not systematically, there are always a few bad apples), but they are using their role as consumers to influence the judgement of the movie chains.
Woohoo! Now if I can just get this “Insane” stamp off my wrist, I’ll be in good shape!
Finally, I am beginning to see your point that there is little that could be done to legally restrict the right to protest to causes that are just, but I still think what they’re doing is wrong. I think rjung is correct in saying that what they are doing violates the spirit of the law, and unfornutately what constitutes the “spirit” of the law is subjective and legally irrelevant.
*Yeah, I like Webster’s dictonary better too, but I liked this definition better. It serves to show that the ins and outs of what qualifies as coercion are in the semantics (excluding the legal definition of coercion, and I don’t know if rjung meant “coerce” in the legal sense or not).
To extend that analogy, the firearm (equivalent to the letters these guys are writing) isn’t the key to your equation. Killing the guy (equivalent to suppressing the film) is the crux; the illegal part. The problem here should be quite obvious. Guns are legal; killing—with any instrument, or none at all—is not. So while criminalize murder, we don’t outlaw firearms. Sure, your example is a misuse of the gun, but (and I’m really afraid to ask this) does that mean they should all be outlawed? Just because some persons will misuse them?
So simply because people would “misuse” their rights, you’d have those rights suppressed - and remember to do so equitably, you’d have to suppress the same rights for everyone. Or you’d have to set up some panel as arbiters of what is a “proper use of your rights.” Oh yeah, that thing wouldn’t turn political in about two shakes of a lamb’s tail. It sounds like you’re back to advocating censorship again. Suppressing speech of one type in order to preserve speech of another. Except that in actual fact, the speech type you’d have suppressed (at least judging by the example provided in this thread) doesn’t have the effect you attribute to it. That’s just lovely.
No. The letter writers are merely exerting influence. Influence is not control. And in any case, the same path for exercising influence is open everyone. Surely you’re not going to suggest that everyone has control over the theater owner’s decision. Look, if you disagree with what the Move America Forward group is doing, you can apply exactly the same tactics to dilute their effort. If you decide that suppressing their effort is the thing to do, then you’re left with no method to petition your local theater owner (who may not be planning to show the film) that many people would like to see it.
Sure, that’s coercion; there’s a threat of force. I have no argument with it. But I don’t think your analogy is equivalent by any means. The guy’s gonna bark because there’s an immediate and irreversible deadly action which is imminent. For a theater owner, the vast majority of which own several separate theaters with multiple screens, the loss of revenue from one film that a number of people have said they won’t attend, just isn’t an immediate threat of bankruptcy. Thus the letter writing activities fail the test of force.
Sorry about that. What I wrote there sounds a little condescending. That was not my intent, Frank. May I call you Frank?
Your dictionary link is for the “boycott,” not coercion. I’m not sure if you intended that, but let’s examine it for a moment anyway; it’s given me an idea that might be worth exploring.
Presumably, and please tell if I’m mistaken, you and rjung wouldn’t object to the Move America Forward guys boycotting the film. If this is indeed the case, it appears that what you’re both objecting to is, quite simply put, that this group has announced their intent to boycott film and done so by informing the theater operators directly. Right? I just don’t understand how that can be found objectionable? Would it be more palatable to you if these guys had taken full-page advertisements in the large newspapers of America? I’m trying to understand if it’s the message they’re sending, or the method they’ve chosen to do so.
That is a truly terrible analogy, rjung. Especially given your previous admission in this thread. You said earlier, “Picketing outside the theater? Go for it,” meaning that some degree of intimidation towards prospective viewers was acceptable to you. Now you’re trying to turn that around and use intimidation as an example of something bad of which you think I should automatically disapprove. Notably, though, the aspect of intimidating prospective Fahrenheit 9/11 viewers is completely absent from this letter writing campaign. I would even be so bold as to suggest that the letter writers deliberately chose a tactic for protest that they could well expect to be less effective in order to avoid intimidation. It is on this point that your analogy fails—the letters offer no intimidation to any would-be viewers. And to be honest, I don’t care what those guys with the bats do; I’ve applied for a concealed carry license. :-p
An asshole according to who? You? When did you appoint yourself Grand Arbiter of all that is Right and Good? Face, the Klan, and the Skinheads, the Republican Party, Ralph Nader, hell Congress itself, are chock fulla assholes. Yet the right of free speech is protected for even the most gaping of them. Exactly as it should be. You want to remove that right for some of them—and to do so using the worst possible—personal opinion. There’s an old canard about assholes and opinions, ya know. Everybody’s got one, but nobody wants to look at the other guy’s.
The Move America Forward guys aren’t telling the theater owners, “We aren’t going to see this movie.” They’re telling the theater owners, “We want you to pull this movie so other people cannot see it.” See the difference?
Chalk it up to cultural differences, then. In my view, “picketing” consists of being on the sidelines, waving signs like “Moore lies!” and telling people they shouldn’t see the movie. Intimidating people is a different kettle of fish, and suggests to potential moviegoers that, if they see the movie, they will suffer negative consequences as a result.
Or, to use the (admittedly imperfect) election-day analogy again, wearing a “Bush sucks” shirt on election day is not a problem; wearing a “Bush sucks” shirt while wielding a blunt weapon and scowling at other voters is.
Since we’re talking about my opinion of folks like the Move America Forward gang (go back and check that OP again), then yeah.
I haven’t. And since we’re not talking legislative action against the MAF folks, your point is irrelevant.
If that really made any difference, and I don’t think it does, your evidence for what you claim is - what? You got a copy of one of these letters? 'Cuz there sure ain’t one linked in this thread, nor is there a sample on the Move America Forward website. Or anywhere else I can find.
Oh please. You know damned well that one of the goals of picketers is to intimidate people from crossing their lines. I would think an old lefty like you would have a little better sense of the bloody history of labor protests and picket lines.
Bit of a stretch there, Unc. Primarily, the first purpose of a picket line was to inform people that a strike was in progress, and to “petition for a redress of grievances”. Of equal importance is to advise other union members from affiliated organizations exactly who was striking whom. As you no doubt know, a member of an affiliated union was obliged to honor the picket line more strictly than another.
And, of course, it provided a locus for head-breaking goons to vigorously advocate their employer’s political agenda.
Chracterizing this as “intimidation” and implying that such was the primary purpose of the picket line is…well, wide of the mark, shall we say.
Ok, I shouldn’t have specified a murder weapon. I have a right to _____ which can be used to maim or kill another person, but that doesn’t mean my ____ should be outlawed. However, using my _____ in a manner that is not appropriate is a misuse of my right to my ____ and that is illegal.
As for the guns…grumbles I would have said “Yes.” a while ago, but unfortunately, our Exalted Master makes a good case about the meaning of the Second Amendment. That having been said, I still think there is room for vastly more aggressive regulation. And keep in mind, when that amendment was penned, the firearms available were single shot, muzzle loading, flint-lock (?) weapons. Not Glock .45’s or 357 magnums.
I’m not saying they should be stripped of their right to protest, I’m just saying that I think trying to prevent people from seeing a film is wrong and that is the end result of their actions. What’s more, it is the only motivation I can see for engaging in such a campaign. I don’t care who made the film. I support Rush Limbaugh’s right to spew whatever he may on the radio. In fact, I’d be even more lenient than the FCC in regards to the definitions of obscenity and lewdness.
That’s something of an unnecessary pain in the butt, methinks. I shouldn’t have to wear armor to protect myself from people misusing their rightfully owned _____'s, after all. So I shouldn’t have to fight to make sure I can see this film when it comes out.
This is an unfortunately gray area, which I’ll elaborate upon below. But the threat, presumably, is that the letter writers will boycott the theatres entirely and that could/would result in a more signficant loss of revenue. I think that they are not going to see the film is a foregone conclusion.
Actually, that was more of a Simpsons reference than a remark on how you’re composing your replies.
And sure, everyone else does…for reasons wholly beyond my understanding
My point with that link was that a boycott could be used as a means of coercion. They are threatening, presumably*, not to use the services provided by these various cinemas in order to compel them not to show the film.
*I presume that’s what they’re saying they’ll do in their letters because that seems to be what the threat was in the campaign that got the Reagan flick yanked. I think the fact that they aren’t going to see the film is something of a foregone conclusion and one the cinemas don’t particularly care about. They know some people won’t see that film, but they don’t want people to stop seeing movies at their theatres because they showed Moore’s film.
That’s the heart of that damnable gray area. It all lies in their intentions. I think rjung has said it once or twice that they are not trying to prevent themselves from seeing the film; they are trying to prevent others from seeing it. That is wrong. Unfortunately, it’s a point that’s impossible to prove and all depends on your perspective.
I think yours is “They are announcing their intention to boycott the film as a means of convincing the theatre owners it’s not worth showing.” (forgive me if I’m wrong)
And mine, at least, is “They are announcing their intention to boycott the theatre as a means of compelling the cinemas not to show the film so as to prevent other people from seeing it.”
Do you see the difference I’m getting at? I know I don’t always verbalize my thoughts very clearly, but I can try again if I’m not making sense.
Really? I thought it was SOP for right-wing astroturf campaigns to have pre-written letters for their members to sign and send off. Primus knows most of these folks aren’t bright enough to write a coherent letter on their own.
Still, there is a glimpse into what the anti-Moore folks are writing about:
Quote the first amendment, get hate mail in response. Yeah, that’s Move America Forward all right.
My most recent experience with protesters and picketers was the months-long supermarket strike we had here in southern California. Needless to say, every single protester I encountered was civil and well-behaved, even when I did (reluctantly) crossed the picket line. Maybe your problems with protesters come from yourself, by chance?
If you’re gonna trot out stupid ad hominens like this at every opportunity, there’s no reason to continue this discussing this with you. I don’t care to associate, in any fashion, with abusive and intolerant people. I have to wonder what possible purpose you can find for posting such counter-productive garbage in a debate that’s been pretty civil and reasonable to this point.
And this snippet of yours proves how that the authors of the hate mail are associated with MAF, or that these e-mails are condoned by the MAF? Anybody with an internet connection and an e-mail account can read a list of e-mail addresses. A list of e-mail addresses that seems to be non-existent on the MAF site, I might add. And I’ve looked. Exhaustively. Including all postings on the Yahoo! message board that contain the text string “Moore” or “theater.” Dunno where Salon got their information that there’s an e-mail list of theater employees on MAF, but it sure ain’t there now.
Nope. Never crossed a picket line in my life. I can, however, read the newspaper, watch the news. I can also search the Internet, and more specifically and reliably the U.S. Department of Labor, and find hundreds of cites for picket line violence.
There was a list of email addresses. jack at theatre.com types*. Just a list of names followed by a domain name of a theatre chain. As you stated, the list ain’t there now, but it was. Unfortunately, I have little more than my word on that.
But, right above the link that says “Send your message to leading movie industry executives” is the line
*What they might have done to compile the addresses was just use jon@.domain.com, and not actually find real email addresses, because anything sent to a domain will end up in someone’s email box at that domain. All of the ones on the list were like that, not “Marketing@.theatre.com” or anything you’d expect would be the business addresses. And that would also explain how that theatre worker got the protester’s emails.
You’re supporting Move America Forward, are you not? They certainly strike me as being very intolerant of Moore’s movie.
What can I say, I’m a patriotic American who has little tolerance for freedom-repressing movie-squelching right-wing astroturf PACs who hate a movie so much they want to prevent other people from seeing it. This might be acceptable in John Ashcroft’s America, but it sure as hell ain’t in mine.
Sometimes being a patriot requires you to defend the ability of people to do what you don’t approve of. Even the actions of, “freedom-repressing movie-squelching right-wing astroturf PACs”.
As long as the people involved do not break the law (i.e. threaten violence or other type activities), I support their efforts to try and influence others in whatever it is they want to attempt to influence. Be in NAMBLA, MoveAmericaForward, anti-apartheid boycotts, and MoveOn.org. As a general rule, boycotts are a great way for individuals to show displeasure with the actions of an individual or entity.
If a theater agrees with the people against Moore, how is this a problem? If someone wants the movie shown against the desires of the theater owners, I suggest they open their own theaters to do so.
I say it’s neither right or wrong, but instead, amoral.
And as I wrote previously, I fully agree that Move America Forward has a legal right to conduct their letter-writing campaign. I maintain, however, that their desire to prevent other people from seeing the film is morally wrong (as per the OP), and personally find it a violation of the spirit of “freedom of speech.”
Or, to put it another way, I might be rather pissed about their tactics, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to call the cops to have them locked up. I’ll merely exercise my free-speech rights and call them a gang of astroturfin’ right-wing poopy-heads.
Talking to you is a wholly useless exercise, rjung. You ignore things already posted; you don’t explain your position sufficiently to avoid misunderstandings when that is easily done; you employ strawman arguments all too regularly; you are repeatedly abusive, too often combative, and frequently intolerant.
I’m sorry Frank. Again, I do not wish to sound condescending but, in my opinion, your participation, and methods of expression, in this thread have been exemplary. I commend you for that; it is something that’s not seen often enough in GD these days—especially in a topic that has as much potentional to be politicized as one. And your points deserve responses from me in an equivalent fashion. I’m sorry, however, that I don’t feel able to do that. I’m afraid rjung’s caustic attitude, combativeness, and general incivility has put me off this topic, soured me enough that I find myself unable to respond to your circumspection. You have shown yourself to be a worthy opponent, and I have enjoyed our exchange here. For that I thank you. Hopefully we will have a chance to do this again on another topic very soon.
