Comments on: Pay Attention Hollywood: The Fate of ‘Hillary the Movie’ is No Partisan Issue

By: Getting Caught Up: September 2009 « BW Media Spotlight

Getting Caught Up: September 2009 « BW Media Spotlight — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:13:48 +0000

[...] Why is movie censorship OK for one group but not for another? David Bosse takes a look. [...]

By: Bikerdad

Bikerdad — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:39:23 +0000

Assuming that you've seen the movie, thanks for the exceedingly unbiased, thoroughly detailed analysis and thoughtful testimonial. If you haven't seen it, then know that we all appreciate your gracing us with usubstantiated slander.

By: Bikerdad

Bikerdad — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:35:31 +0000

We are also guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble and free association. In concert with freedom of speech, that means we can get together and speak collectively, i.e. corporately. Perhaps you merely intend to prevent profit seeking corporations from advertising, but you certainly don't make that clear. Even if that is your intent, there's still no justification for it. Government ownership of corporations has nothing to do with it. If you want to restrict government's ability to use private entities to advance a partisan agenda, then the best method would be to prevent any gov't ownership or control of "private" entitites. Second would be to forbid gov't owned/controlled entities from political advertising, not all corporations. Additionally, what constitutes a "political ad?" While we can probably agree that "Vote for So and So" is a political ad, what about a biography of a candidate? Does it become an "ad" only if its a hagiography or hatchet job? What if it is thoroughly unflattering, yet everything is true?

By: WestWright

WestWright — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:01:10 +0000

ddaichiro….uh thanks for all your work on the crappy links to the most partison of the Moron Media. Why do you even bother , get a real job and quit working for the Oborg.

By: WarTip

WarTip — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:00:56 +0000

Yeah but just think how much the government could accomplish if they just got us pesky voters out of the way and silenced their opposition. I mean, its not like the government is not looking out for our better interests right? Spanking lobbyists, living with people running brothels out of their basement, cheating on their taxes … I mean what better representation could we have? Leave it to big bro to make everything all right! Big Bro knows best!

Sarc tags anyone?

By: Andrewp111

Andrewp111 — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:21:16 +0000

There is another side to this. Free speech rights should depend on whether the speaker is a real live preson or a corporation. Consider that if corporations are allowed to broadcast political ads, the government owned companies AIG, GM, Chrysler, and Citibank will be able to use US Treasury funds to support the Obama campaign or destroy Obama's enemies. The US government does not have to make a profit, and the bailout funds available exceed any capacity of private contributors. This is a very dangerous power, and needs to be stopped before it ever starts.

Also consider that whoever is in power will simply extort ads out of profit making companies, just as the Great Obama has extorted 150 million in pro-socialized medicine ads out of PHARMA. Allowing corporate ads will simply empower the party in power. If the Hillary movie must be restricted as a consequence, so be it.

By: Sanmon

Sanmon — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:51:36 +0000

Good luck and I wish you the best in your case. First Amendment is an important right for ALL, no matter what political spectrum ones personal beliefs and films are.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:35:15 +0000

Well, if we're going to look at Hillary: The Movie objectively, we're going to have to admit that it contains a lot of "testimonials" that amount to little more than unsubstantiated slander.

By: ddaichiro

ddaichiro — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:55:46 +0000

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...

By: ddaichiro

ddaichiro — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:51:44 +0000

http://mediamatters.org/research/200405110003

Bossie was fired from his job as an investigator working for Representative Dan Burton (R-IN) on the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee in 1998. Bossie was fired — as the Post reported in a front-page article on May 7, 1998 — for his role in releasing edited transcripts of former Clinton administration official Webster Hubbell's prison conversations. Then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich told Burton, in response to the controversy, "I'm embarrassed for you, I'm embarrassed for myself, and I'm embarrassed for the [House Republican] conference at the circus that went on at your committee."