Should RNC have editorial control over Reagan movie?

Great Debates
81

But we could put this all so quickly to rest, Shodan, I’m surprised you haven’t thrown the full weight of your support behind releasing the Reagan Papers. I’m sure you remember, don’t you? The papers that were due to be released about a year or so ago, being twenty years old. And yet the Bushiviks demur… Why is that, Shodan? I mean, since we are all so deeply devoted to historical accuracy, and all.

It must be modesty. That has to be it. If the American people were to be fully exposed to the perspicacity and intelligence that went into such triumphs as Iran-Contra, and the invasion of Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury!), they would be simply overcome. The nation would ring out in glad cries of happy approval. Citizens would swarm over Mt. Rushmore to carve The Ronnie’s visage out of the mountainside with thier bare hands!

This would be embarassing to such modest and unassuming men as Karl Rove, and Our Leader. But as pretty as this decorum may be, don’t you agree we should get the historical record right out there in public view, to forestall scurrillous and underhanded liberals?

Wouldn’t that be a splendid day for the Right? Don’t you simply hunger and crave such a glorious revelation? I know I do. Oh, yes, indeed. And while we’re at it, mightn’t we have a peek at Gov. Bush’s Texas papers? Just to forestall any illicit innuendo, you understand.

I stand firmly assured of your complete support in this regard.

82

An odd variation on the ol’ simulpost there, Fiddle. :wink:

83

Fiddle Peghead has brought up a crucial implicit point that almost no one else seems to be addressing:

The biggest complaint made by the RNC is this admittedly made-up line about “they that live in sin shall die in sin”.

If you accept Edmund Morris’ quote as authentic, is it really that hard to believe that Reagan could have said such a thing? I would say no. (As I stated in the recent GQ thread on this subject, I heard quite a few conservative friends, colleagues and acquaintances (who invariably were Reagan supporters) voice such sentiments back in the era under discussion).

I believe the RNC knows the line isn’t really hard to imagine, but is trying (as do all political orgs) to distance itself from historical issues that will make their party look bad by current standards, and that the focus on “he never said those words” is a red herring, trying to cloud the issue.

Such a sentiment – that AIDS was a plague from God – is met with much more disapproval today, from liberals and conservatives alike, than it was fifteen or twenty years ago. And rightly so. But we lose perspective when we whitewash history, especially to assist political strategists.

I’m not disputing the RNC’s claim that CBS produced a biased hatchet job – I haven’t seen the movie, so I can’t very well do that.

And I believe that Democrat spinners would be making the same specious argument if this were a Fox biopic on Bill Clinton, and it featured an encounter with a fictitious mistress. "Hey, that’s not fair, that bimbo didn’t even exist!

84

On hamster-delayed preview, I see that others are discussing this topic. Cool.

85

“The role of Fifi Le Boink marks the film debut of curvaceous Ann Coulter…”

86

ROTFLMAO

87

Actually, I envision the lovely and talented Miss Coulter in the role of Hilary (just add 50 lbs and a headband) in the upcoming epic: The Clinton Years: What *Really[i/] Went Down at the Whitehouse.

88

I’d just like to applaud elucidator’s last comment, and point out that is exactly the solution the founders would have wanted. You don’t stop bad speech by supressing it before it is uttered; you’re supposed to go after bad speech by presenting MORE speech. Disprove the falsehoods.

In the end, I believe that an educated and skeptical populace doesn’t require slander or libel laws at all. Maybe we don’t have that sort of society yet, but still… these are the values our nation was founded on (Hamilton to the contrary).

-C

89

Hamilton! Hamilton!! That snotty little closet Monarchist? Tom Paine would have slapped his sorry bitch ass up in a New Amsterdam minute!

90

Whether it’s biased or not means nothing to me, because the networks should be able to air whatever they want, biased or not, without political interference.

They should be able to show Reagan as a doddering senile man shitting his pants, or Clinton getting a hooker’s lips surgically grafted to his wang without political parties making demands like the RNC has. Whether the movie in question is biased or not means absolutely nothing.

91

Except that surely even you must recognize three things. First, that it is very very difficult for a public figure to take advantage of these “corrections,” by the nature of our laws regarding them. Secondly, that whether there are monetary damages or not, the person’s unfairly besmirched reputation is often not rehabilitated. And third, whether the person successfully sues for libel/slander or not, it is wrong to libel or slander someone. That you continue to defend this is frankly disgusting.

Snort. Some people will believe that it’s a partisan slam no matter what the truth is. Some people will believe that it’s an honest appraisal no matter what the truth is. Most people will lack the information necessary to decide which; few people will let that stop them from deciding anyway.

But that’s utterly irrelevant, because the people don’t get to determine whether something is accurate or not; accuracy is irrespective of our opinions on it. If the people suddenly decided tomorrow that Europeans are a bunch of communist lunatics who plan to take over the world, that would not make it so.

And of course, since I seem to be on ignore today: Maximum C, I shouldn’t have to prove that I didn’t rape a donkey while alone and drunk out of my mind last Halloween; it’s an insinuation which should never be made to begin with, even if I can’t prove that it’s incorrect. It is not my responsibility to prove that you’re lying about me; it’s your responsibility to prove that you’re telling the truth. That you would have it the other way around is just as morally repugnant as rjung’s position.

92

Cite? I am not aware of any laws restricting the protection against slander and libel for celebrities and public figures, and celebrities sue tabloids on a regular basis. Heck, sometimes the high-profile nature of a celebrity helps him refute unpleasant charges; just look at the folks who think OJ Simpson is innocent of murder, or that George W. Bush didn’t go AWOL from military service.

Again, cite?

Oh, brother. Talk about a straw man argument. Let’s keep two things straight here:

  1. It has not yet been determined that “The Reagans” was an inaccurate and slanderous piece of work. While Reagan-worshippers and the GOP claim it is, the movie has not been seen by an impartial audience, so they cannot determine if the Reaganite claims are true or false.

  2. To say “I think ‘The Reagans’ should be shown so people can decide if it’s fair or not” is not the same as saying “Slander is okay.” That association is as ludicrous as saying “If you think Kobe Bryant should be given a fair trial, then you support rape.” :rolleyes:

And may I remind you that being accused of being unsaintly (whether or not those accusations are true) is an unavoidable part of being a celebrity/public figure, especially politicians. The notion that Reagan should be given a free ride just because he’s the darling of the GOP is nauseating.

And the idea that the Republican Party is merely acting as guardians of the truth is a laughable lie – I certainly don’t recall any howls of protest from the right when Jerry Falwell was peddling those anti-Clinton videotapes during the '90s, do you?

93

The papers documenting GeeDubya’s last year of valiant service, defending the skies above Amarillo from Viet Cong aircraft, have not surfaced. This is to be expected from the military, which are well known to be averse to such bureaucratic procedures as record-keeping and the like. (I expect a Congressional appropriation will be requested in order to keep up the relentless search for those documents.)

Some on the left find it puzzling that Geedubya has not more clearly enunciated his version of events. For myself, I find it entirely reasonable that nothing malign occured, he simply wandered off base in search of a beer and forgot how to get back.

After all, “Shit Happens”. The presence of an asshole only makes it more likely.

94

True, but… if it is slanderous, what do you say to Nancy after the entire country got to watch her family ridiculed? Gee whiz, sorry about that Nance, we’ll do better next time?

Her ability to potentially file a lawsuit doesn’t make the slander go away, the whole point of those laws is to help prevent slander from happening in the first place.

95

“Release the lawyers!” :wink:

Laws are (generally) reactive – when the speed limit law says I cannot drive faster than 35 MPH, that doesn’t mean there’s a mystic force in my car that prevents me from stomping the gas pedal and doing 90. The only preventive aspect of the law is the threat of being caught/prosecuted/busted.

Similarly, I’m sure that when “The Reagans” was first pitched to CBS, someone in the CBS Legal Department looked it over and said it was okay to proceed, which indicates that someone there thought they weren’t guilty of slander or libel.

I suspect that “The Reagans” (at least as originally intended) inhabits that grey area between slander and truth – e.g., some folks think it’s a hatchet-job, and some folks think it’s an accurate assessment. My problem remains with the fact that the first group pre-emptively blocked the movie, which means folks who disagree with them are not given a chance to form their own opinions.

96

Um, I’m definitely NOT a fan of Reagan, but wasn’t the Morris biography partially fictionalized, written from a perspective of a non-existant childhood friend of Reagan’s?

97

Well, 10 seconds with Yahoo gives me:

From here.

The gist being that public figures, in order to win a libel case, must prove malice, which you or I would not.

For the love of Og, rjung, it’s blindingly obvious! Think about it: if you wander through the streets proclaiming at the top of your lungs that g8rguy molests small furry animals, and I later sue you for slander and win (as I do not, in fact molest small furry animals), in order for my reputation to be rehabilitated, that I have successfully sued you for slander has to be broadcast to the public. How often do you hear about this?

Oh? I would say it’s an accurate characterization of your position, and if you don’t like it, I humbly suggest it’s because your position is just wrong. Period.

Indeed; this matters how? At this point, I’m talking in the realm of the abstract: one does not accuse someone else of molesting small furry animals without being able to prove that they do molest small furry animals. One does not insinuate that another molests small furry animals without being able to prove it.

Indeed, it does, and here’s why: you have said nothing whatsoever about pulling it if it is decided to be slanderous. You are willing to risk slandering someone else in the name of letting the people determine truth, ignoring that of course the people don’t determine truth to begin with.

I argue that if it defames someone else and is already proven to be true, it’s okay to say it. You argue, if I read you correctly, that if it defames someone else and is not already proven to be false, it’s okay to say it; your position hence permits slander whereas mine does not.

Indeed; this is why public figures have less protection against libel in the first place! Nevertheless, if an accusation is not known to be true, it should not be made. You, however, argue that it is okay regardless, and that if it actually meets the standards of libel, then it should be punished. I argue that if you are going to smear someone, you darn well better be sure that what you’re accusing him of is true. This is why I suggest that your position it reprehensible.

And when did I suggest that, praytell?

And when did I suggest that, praytell?

98

The day after the movie was announced, 80% of conservatives were appalled.
The day after Arnold announced, 80% of conservatives (nationwide) were onboard.
Man, you guys are quick.
(Percentages are approximate.)

99

I stand corrected, then.

I dunno about where you are, but I hear about celebrity/tabloid lawsuit settlements on a fairly regular basis (though it might have something to do with the fact that I live somewhat close to Hollywood). I mean, it’s not like there’s a big conspiracy to keep settlements in slander lawsuits a secret.

In an ideal world, you’d be correct. In the real world, people regularly do make baseless accusations against folks without being able to prove it. Again, just look at the anti-Clinton videos Jerry Falwell was peddling throughout the '90s.

No, my point is that if it was clearly slanderous, the movie would never have gotten as far as it did – at a minimum, someone from CBS’s legal department would have said “We can’t produce this movie, we’d be an open target for a lawsuit.” The fact that no one at CBS stopped the movie suggests to me that they don’t think it is, which means the Slanderious-ness of “The Reagan” is an unresolved issue.

You may like to assume the movie is very slanderous, but clearly not everyone agrees, and therefore the amount of “risk” is also uncertain.

[quote]
You are willing to risk slandering someone else in the name of letting the people determine truth, ignoring that of course the people don’t determine truth to begin with.

[quote]

Wow, and people accuse liberals of being elitist? :dubious: At least I’m willing to let the open marketplace of ideas be the final judge of how trustworthy/distrustful “The Reagans” is.

No, my position is “if it is uncertain whether or not it defames someone, then it is wrong to supress it because it might defame someone.” Again, neither of us have seen the movie; all claims that “The Reagans” is slander have come from heavily-biased sources, and their claims should be taken with a grain of salt.

Again, go talk to Rev. Falwell about his anti-Clinton videotapes.

I wasn’t referring to you specifically, just the pro-censorship forces in general.

100

In other words, rj, I would suggest that all defamation of character which is immoral should not be engaged in. I would further suggest that not all immoral defamation of character is illegal defamation of character. Since the only remedy you have admitted thus far is the legal system, your position as it stands tacitly permits all defamation of character which passes the test of legality, when what should be the case is that defamation of character is permissible only when it passes the test of morality.