Yeah, but the news reports say that we’ll be seeing an ALTERED version of the documentary. Scenes have been cut, and/or altered. We’ll never really get to see what the fuss was about because of RNC censorship.
Golly, I remember in school, learning about countries that required “papers” before you could travel; where the government tracked people’s travels; where you could be detained and not allowed to travel, if you were on a government list; where one would see soldiers with automatic rifles standing guard in public places; where you would be attacked publicly, if you disagreed with the statements of the current leader; and where the party in charge had control over what was allowed aired on the media!
Isn’t it wonderful!!?!?!!!
Them third-world and communist countries don’t get to have ALL the fun anymore!!!
Jeez Wyatt, overdramatize much? :rolleyes:
Are some Reagan supporters embarrassed that he called his wife “mommy”?
When I mention that he did, Reaganites in my circle get all defensive. I know that many old guys call their wives “mother”, but not “mommy”. Even Bill O’reilley got a little huffy about it the other night. Sheesh! It’s just a pet name. There were weirder things about the couple.
But even that doesn’t justify the RNC’s censorship of what we watch on tv. If they don’t like the content they can counter with The Truth.
I’d like to see the original movie released on DVD/VCR.
That’s a shame, if for no other reason that we might not be able to debate this topic as fully as we otherwise would.
But how can a non-governmental body censor anything? CBS could’ve gone right ahead with their original plans. Boycotts are a long standing tradition in free societies such as ours. It’s wrong to call the actions of private citizens “censorhip”. What we have here is plain ol’ free market decision making by CBS.
I’m not a fan of heavy handed tactics such as those used by the RNC in this instance. But there’s nothing illegal about the actions, and no one prevented CBS from showing the program had that company simply chosen to do so.
Actually, aren’t there still some conservatives who think that moving “The Reagans” to Showtime isn’t enough, and are pushing for it to be supressed all together?
[ul]
[li]CBS is owned by Viacom.[/li][li]Viacom wants Congress to uphold the new relaxed FCC regulations on media ownership.[/li][li]Congress is controlled by the Republican Party.[/li][li]Republican Party is out to steamroll “The Reagans.”[/li][/ul]
“Free market” my ass.
While I agree with your point #4, there is a non sequitur between your points 2&3 and 3&4. Even if I accept your little proof, one can still argue that CBS could take it’s chances with #2 and go ahead and air the program. No censorship, just tough decisions.
The free market does not ensure that all programs get aired (as you surely know).
I don’t know. Are actions taken by the ruling political party truly non-governmental? Would this action have been successful if the Democrats were in power?
It’s been popular recently for conservatives to say that free speech is a right, but that there can (will) be “consequences” for exercising that right. Just as they say about the “traitors” who criticize Bush’s policies.
Sure, you can sing the Barney song, but I’m gonna smack you with this baseball bat if you do.
Well, if the RNC threatened to have the Republican controlled Congress pass legislation seriously determintal to CBS, and they could actually follow thru on that threat, then I’d say that was a form of censorship. Maybe I missed the the proof that that was actually the case, as opposed to conspiracy theory “connect the dots” speculation. If I did miss the proof, point it out and I’ll concede your point.
Can’t really comment on that generalization other than to say that I support any group’s right (Pubbie, Dem or otherwise) to use a boycott to influence what gets published, televised, shown in a movie theater, or what-have-you.
Keep in mind that these types of tactics can also backfire. Push a partisan agenda too hard, and you risk alientating the critical “middle of the road” voters.
From your lips to the ears of Allah.
I think of censorship, John Mace, as trying to suppress anything one thinks of as objectionable. A felt-tip pen will do the trick. Your example, and mine (above), are more like extortion. Conspiracy??? I didn’t say that.
I have no trouble at all with boycott. Even when those who actually do the boycott have no idea what they’re boycotting against. This movie, for example.
I do not think very highly CBS for their lack of courage in this matter. In fact, I don’t think very highly of the RNC for their use of boycott in this matter instead of countering with their own version of the truth.
On the “free speech” thing? Maybe I just watch too much FNC. Bill and Sean (and Allan), one after the other, have probably slanted my view of reality.
I need a joint.
My conspiracy comment was related to rjung’s bullets, not your post. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Agreed on both accounts.
Why, yes, thank you. Ya thinkin’ I under-did it?
Gotta say I LOVE the theory that if there is no ‘proof’ of a direct threat to have “our boys do things you’re not gonna like…” then no threat exists! I LOVE that theory!!!
But, your honor, when the store owner made the connection between our nice suit-and-tie insurance collector … and our huge thug-like muscle guys with the gas cans … it was Just their own conclusions! You can’t show me any ‘proof’ that that WE ever stated a connection with bad things happening to them if they didn’t pay their ‘insurance’ premiums!!!
Why yes, yes it does. Page 458 clearly states:
I don’t know what to make of the fact that the argument has gone on for three whole pages beyond this evidence originally posted by Fiddle Peghead with only three (that I saw, and including my own) acknowledgments that it was even posted. There hasn’t been much discussion at all as to whether or not
“maybe the Lord brought down this plague because illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments.”
is the same or similar to the script line of
“They that live in sin shall die in sin”
They seem pretty much the same thing to me…
Well, now. According to a clip I saw (on fox, I think) the conservatives are making a more “honest” movie entitled The Real Reagans. Or something like that.
Lets boycott. Whaddya say.
What, and sink to their level?
The RNC is not strictly speaking a governmental body, but you’d have to be pretty damn naive not to believe it has a lot of influence with the present Administration. And while I agree with you that this is not censorship under the strict definition of censorship, it’s close enough that saying it’s not censorship is pretty much a form of nitpicking. “It’s not censorship because although it resembles censorship in every respect, it doesn’t have the Official Censorship Stamp on it.”