Hollywood’s Rendezvous with Government Censorship and why Michael Moore Should be Worried
by Horace CooperLast week the United States Supreme Court held oral arguments over a fascinating question: whether or not the federal government has the authority to decide if a movie/documentary is a form of entertainment free from most broadcast restrictions or if the video is instead a lengthy attack ad – albeit 90 minutes long – against a candidate for federal office subject to the landmark 2002 federal campaign finance law. The BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) prevents “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. The case is Citizens United v. FEC and Hollywood should be greatly alarmed by its implications.
David N. Bossie, President Citizens United
The movie in question is “Hillary the Movie” and as a low budget documentary it bills itself as providing the untold story of who Hillary Clinton is by presenting nearly “40 in-depth interviews with experts, opinion makers, and many of the people who personally locked horns with the Clintons.” Regardless of one’s perspective on the electoral merits of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, it should be seen by industry insiders as truly remarkable that such a movie is subject to federal government regulation.
The case began when a conservative non-profit group, Citizens United, announced plans to show the movie at theaters and to make it available in households with TV-on-demand access on cable TV. Rather than let consumers decide for themselves whether to bring this movie into their home the FEC declared that it was in violation of the BCRA.
The legal issues in this case should have nothing to do with the movie’s political point of view because even though the movie includes a mix of facts and opinion regarding the actions and behavior of Senator Clinton throughout her political career, such presentations are constitutionally protected. The question is therefore whether the government should be able to re-categorize the packaging of this visual product created by Citizens United, i.e. the movie, and declare that it is a campaign ad subject to regulation under the BRCA. If so, what else could be subjected to this form of “neo-blacklisting?”
Remember this is a documentary being sold to the public and not affiliated with any campaign. Unfortunately it is the position of both the FEC and the Obama administration that the government does have the authority to regulate such videos and that they properly used it when the FEC prevented “Hillary the Movie” from being distributed by cable on demand.
Either the BCRA is being misinterpreted or the act is facially unconstitutional. Either way the decision by the FEC was a clear and direct unconstitutional restraint on free speech – speech that is protected by the First Amendment and speech that is the foundation for artistic freedom relished by every writer and director – nay all members of the artistic community.
The movie never formally encourages anyone to vote for or against Hillary Clinton or any other candidate for that matter, but it certainly presents an unflattering perspective of the former First Lady. But unless all political viewpoints – including unflattering ones – are going to considered campaign projects in the future the fact this one was “slanted” shouldn’t have raised an eyebrow. In fact Citizens United has previously produced several movies focusing on controversies of the day including the War on Terror, the United Nations, and illegal immigration. These other movies have been shown in movie theaters and the DVDs are sold by many retailers and Amazon.
Unfortunately if the FEC standard is upheld by the Supreme Court any of these topics could potentially be subject to government regulation. Moreover why stop with Citizens United? Neo-blacklisting could just as easily be used to silence Michael Moore or Oliver Stone – two individuals whose political agendas are readily apparent in their movies. Where does a movie cross the line from art to campaign advocacy? Would Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” pass the government’s campaign test – it is clearly advocacy as are many other films and documentaries.
Instead of accepting Citizen United’s argument that the communication of its points of view on various topics – just like the communications by producers and directors all over the world – are a valuable contribution to the political process, the federal government and the FEC in particular believe that they can protect the American movie viewing public from the wrong kind of material.
This isn’t just dangerous; the difficulties of such an approach are obvious. In this very case, the government went so far as to argue that even the commercials promoting the movie, i.e. the movie trailer constituted “political electioneering.” Follow this closely – since the movie is a “campaign ad.” The ad for the “campaign ad” must also be considered a “campaign ad.” Where does this stop?
It is pretty apparent that the government has overreached. In fact, political discourse is precisely the reason we have the First Amendment. Regulating, delaying or preventing the outright distribution of political ideas is the very behavior of the government that the First Amendment was intended to prevent and just imagine what the movie industry would be like if this guarantee of freedom didn’t exist.
If upheld this type of regulation will prove to be a double-edge sword. Today its “Hillary the Movie” but tomorrow it will be Moore’s “9/11″ and Stone’s “W” or any number of movies that have a “political” bent. Government should never have the power to decide for adults whether political commentary is too persuasive, caustic or unbalanced nor should it decide whether it can be viewed at home or at theaters.
Horace Cooper is a legal commentator and an adjunct fellow with the Institute for Liberty. (www.horacecooper.com)
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
48 Comments
An interesting and informative piece, Mr. Cooper. Thanks for sharing this, as I was not aware of the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" prior to reading this.
By chance, do you know which of our elected representatives signed off on this in order to make it "Bipartisan"? It has the earthy, musky aroma of a Pelosi/Reed product. Any Republican who supported this should have his/her name permanently attached.
I happen to have those names handy: the bill was co-sponsored by a fellow named John McCain and his Democrat friend, Russ Feingold. It's also known as the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act. This is a deeply disturbing development and I hope the USSC strikes it down.
Horace Cooper: "Neo-blacklisting could just as easily be used to silence Michael Moore or Oliver Stone"
Could be, but unlikely as conservatives are ideologically opposed to censorship.
Moore and Stone clearly tried to influence the election with a couple of nearly unwatchable flicks put out just in time {bought Stones's DVD and made it about half way through, so far}. Conservatives may not like it, but they'd never dream of making it illegal. That's a Leftist dream, our nightmare.
Nice. OK, I'd heard of McCain/Feingold. What a tool.
Nice. OK, I'd heard of McCain/Feingold. What a tool.
They've been busy ignoring so many other Amendments and Clauses, why not specifically-protected free speech as well? And while they're at it, that "Neither House shall adjourn for more than Three Days during Session" clause has strutted about for far too long!
I would like to think we can rely on at least 5 of our justices to fix this issue. Hope So.
Government has to stay out of speech issues regarding media of any kind. Yes, alot of crapola is generated by disingenous individuals with a political agenda. Nature of the beast. Good or bad, you have to be free to present the view you wish to, unlike college campuses. It is a double edge sword but eventually, fact and truth will rule out. The public can be the best fact checker via the internet, which must remain unregulated, at all costs. Time was, of course, fact could be twisted by the MSM. Not anymore. The information can be found. Too many good bloggers with access to information. Great read, Mr. Cooper!!
"Either the BCRA is being misinterpreted or the act is facially unconstitutional."
I'd go with the second one. The whole idea of restricting political speech at any time in an election is repugnant. The Supreme Court has held that political speech enjoys the most protection under the constitution than any other. It seems the act itself, intentionally or not, curtails the public's criticism of government–a.k.a. our "redress of grievances" or, right to petition.
Hi Horace, Nice to see you here!
Good post. Perhaps we can also see something come to fruition as far as The Path to 9-11 as well. Holding that series back from DVD and Blue Ray format is a form of censorship as well, is it not? The thing is this: Americans are the ulitmate arbitors of what they will watch, regardless of content. I won't see W, but, I will see Hillary the Movie. It is certainly not up to any Justice at SCOTUS, or Federal Judge to tell me, or anyone else what they should or should not see. Censorship is not merely dangerous it is unAmerican.
Hi Horace, Nice to see you here!
Good post. Perhaps we can also see something come to fruition as far as The Path to 9-11 as well. Holding that series back from DVD and Blue Ray format is a form of censorship as well, is it not? The thing is this: Americans are the ulitmate arbitors of what they will watch, regardless of content. I won't see W, but, I will see Hillary the Movie. It is certainly not up to any Justice at SCOTUS, or Federal Judge to tell me, or anyone else what they should or should not see. Censorship is not merely dangerous it is unAmerican.
To use a favorite Al Franken quote: "This people are shameless!"
I agreed with you, Mr, Cooper, until the last paragraph. There's no way in hell this guvment will stifle liberal-leftist speech. Too many suckers out there that think Michael Moore and Stone "moderate" and ant propogandists.
Hi, Bluecollarbytes. I see where you're coming from, in the sense that it's unlikely that "Fahrenheit 9/11" or "W" would ever be subject to BRCA. I think there's a distinct possibility though that, somewhere down the road, Mssrs. Moore and Stone will make a film that, no matter how far left-leaning it is, someone in the FEC will still find something objectionable in it. Admittedly, not probable, but there is always the potential of BRCA causing trouble for a filmmaker, regardless of their political leanings.
It is our understanding that this is a very narrow issue- the video was partially financed by a corporate entity and it is that which is being debated; whether they violated McCain-Feingold or not. Legal scholars seem somewhat divided over the issue. It is McCain- Feingold that really needs to be challenged and struck down for it seems unconstitutional. Is money free speech? With privately financed campaigns it certainly should be…
What I don't get is where was this debate in 2004 when Michael Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11 in a direct attempt to swing the election? The double standard disgusts me.
More liberal re-definitions. It's "free speech" when someone is paying someone else to say it for them. "This is only a Soros' funded MoveOn documentary interviewing people who've seen Republicans eat live immigrant babies. It doesn't advocate not voting for them, so it's allowed!"
[...] used it when the FEC prevented “Hillary the Movie” from being distributed by cable on demand. – Big Hollywood [...]
"Either the BCRA is being misinterpreted or the act is facially unconstitutional."
Yeah that's a tricky one…..not…..
Unfortunately the squeeky rat gets the cheese. Mathmatically thats:
Liberal + squeek = Rats
Leftists + squeek = Large Swamp Rats,
Ergo: Conservative + squeek = Pest controllers
a Soros' funded MoveOn documentary interviewing people who've seen Republicans eat live immigrant babies
Gives new meaning to the question, "What do you want for dinner tonight, honey, Chinese or Mexican?"
Ironically provisions of the BCRA havebeen challenged in supreme court and, most of it, upheld. How the SCOTUS can say political speech is our most cherished speech and should have the fewest restraints placed upon it, then turn around and allow restrictions like this anyway is beyond me. I think the Supremes should reverse themselves on the act all together and say "oops, our bad".
The fact that it might be financed or partly financed by a corporate entity should be immaterial — almost every movie is financed by such entities, and corporations are specifically formed to produce such films. Well, the Supreme Court has been somewhat re-constituted since the BCRA was upheld (to wit, no more Sandra Day O'Connor), so we may see this slapped down. Scalia's dissent in that case is scathing — he points out just what a prior poster noted, that political speech is at the very heart of free speech, far more so than nude dancing or flag burning, which have been found to be free speech. Well, they are (well, maybe not the nude dancing), but they lie at the periphery of free speech concerns. Political speech is the heart and soul of it, and money is the fundamental expression of political speech for most people. All of the BCRA's efforts to "get money out of politics" has simply led to the rise of far-more-unaccountable and shadowy organizations that lie outside of the political parties themselves.
I don't think Moore need worry. Like many would-be/self-styled /so-called "iconoclasts," satirists, etc., Moore is basically part of the Hive's Agitprop Division. I'm sure with whatever censorship they impose, Obama, as the Hive's current standard-bearer and enforcer, will see to it that Moore gets some dispensation. He's not called "tubby Riefenstahl" for nothing.
I thought it was brought up once for review and the SCOTUS refused to hear the case…
"If upheld this type of regulation will prove to be a double-edge sword. Today its “Hillary the Movie” but tomorrow it will be Moore’s “9/11″ and Stone’s “W” or any number of movies that have a “political” bent. Government should never have the power to decide for adults whether political commentary is too persuasive, caustic or unbalanced nor should it decide whether it can be viewed at home or at theaters. "
Issues like this and the "fairness doctrine" come up and Conservatives are rightly upset. As a Conservative myself, i am guessing that a lot of others still have some hope that if these infringements on free speech become the law of the land it will also apply to Leftist propaganda and Bias. in fact, I would be willing to sacrifice talk radio if it meant that the rest of the media had to follow the same rules fairly applied. After all, there is far more bias to the left everywhere in our society, and something like this fairly applied to Television, News, Newspapers, documentaries, etc would only help Conservatism as we have the power of the argument where the left does not. And therein lies the problem. When I first started reading this piece, I immediately thought of Fahrenheit 911 which was deliberately released prior to the Presidential Election, and it was obviously an attempt to take out President Bush. But instead the documentary at the center of the dispute was Hillary! Hillary who didn't even win her parties Nomination! Hillary who was thrown under the bus not by Conservatives, but by HER OWN supporters! This documentary had absolutely ZERO impact on her campaign or nomination. I happen to own this movie, and while it is admittedly not flattering to Hillary, that is only because Hillary herself is NOT FLATTERING! The fact of the matter is that laws like this will most certainly NOT be applied to Leftist propaganda and as such, Hollywood has absolutely NOTHING to worry about. Even if they were worried initially, they know how things work enough to know that this would just give them even more power to distort and obfuscate on behalf of their Leftist beliefs, it would actually just serve to increase their self indulgence. All this talk about fairness, yet does fairness mean building someone up and stretching the truth to paint just as flattering a side to someone as their unflattering side? Is that fair, or is that is that enforcing artificial bias? There is simply no way that either the "fairness doctrine" or this amendment can possibly work fairly, nor can any intelligent individual believe that this is good for our country, could be effective, and is anything other than the worst example of government tyranny and oppression. When are Americans going to finally wake up from their willful naivete'?
Hollywood liberals never need to worry about laws. They will either be forgiven or rehabilitated.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6d6ad04ce4/eco-c...
I would add that this amendment started with an objection to the movie Hillary' , no doubt with some leftist group behind it. Conservatives have had their chance to make these cases many times over with the obvious example of Fahrenheit 911, yet they did not. "the path to 911" was bullied in to submission by Democrat members of Congress, overstepping their authority and threatening broadcast licences. Obama's supporters in government positions accessed and leaked private information for "joe the plumber". That was not even as bad as when the Obama election team threatened newsmedia airing opponents advertisements with police action! Or how much evidence exists against the Left for TRUE election Fraud? Happening as we speak in MN, and having already occurred in Washington State and countless other examples. Yet, Conservatives do nothing. WHy is that? Is it because we are just too damn Civil? Is it because we are all so independant that we can't be cohesive as a group because we are too busy infighting over who is a "real"conservative, who is a Libertarian, who is a RINO, who is a "neo con"? I suspect that the latter is the true Achille's Heel for Conservativism. We are all so principled that we expect and support only those that fit our own narrow definition, and as such we lack the ability of a true movement to organize and mobilize. We are also too NICE to take on the Left using their own tactics. This is a problem, the left has taught us the ugliness of "any means necessary" but the right has forgotten that there is a such thing as RIGHT. Justice is the only law, and just as war is necessary to protect freedom and people die, Freedom is worth the price. As the only country left on earth willing to fight for that, and the only country in the world that has been able to turn the world back from darkness based on principle and not simple defensive acts of aggression, how can we reconcile this truth with our own weakness in the face of Tyranny in our own homeland?
Are we really "above all that", or "too busy working" or too "civilized" or doing "real" charity work? All the excuses and smug proclamations I hear time and again, or are we really just weak and afraid? It would be naive' to think that despite our awareness of Leftist bias, it hasn't taken at least some small foothold in ourselves would it not? That bias manifests itself in our own adoption of Political Correctness, and our participation in Exoriating fellow conservatives that are truly unafraid to be politically IN correct (IE conservative Ire towards Ann Coulter), or when we tell a liberal if and when we do, that we are a Conservative and then follow it with "but I didn't believe in the war" (IE Tucker Carlson talking about John Stewart), or for many Libertarians, it is a way to BE a conservative, without looking like it to the Libs: "You don't believe in Affirmative action? What are you a ReTHUGLIcan? "ah, no actually I am a Libertarian, and here are all the ways that I agree with you!! Or when you believe in everything the Republican party stands for, or Conservativism, but say "I am an Independent!" Afterall, if you are an independant, it doesn't mean that you are a Free Thinker, it just means that you are weak and/or Naive. Bottom line is, we like to whine, especially to ourselves, but every time I am standing in a locker room at the gym talking about the BS that Obama is pulling and I am "shushed" by a fellow Conservative who acts as though we are living in the Stazi, I realize that we have bought a lot of the indoctrination, and it has resulted in our utter helplessness and inability to stand up for what is right. It will finally happen, just when it is too late. The left knows this, and look how much "change" has been wrought in just a couple months! In four years, we will all be in insane asylums. Amendment 426c: Conservativism, is a dangerous mental disorder and must be "treated" in an institution. All estate is to be titled to the Federal government (for redistribution, to the "right" people of course!).
I would add that this amendment started with an objection to the movie Hillary' , no doubt with some leftist group behind it. Conservatives have had their chance to make these cases many times over with the obvious example of Fahrenheit 911, yet they did not. "the path to 911" was bullied in to submission by Democrat members of Congress, overstepping their authority and threatening broadcast licences. Obama's supporters in government positions accessed and leaked private information for "joe the plumber". That was not even as bad as when the Obama election team threatened newsmedia airing opponents advertisements with police action! Or how much evidence exists against the Left for TRUE election Fraud? Happening as we speak in MN, and having already occurred in Washington State and countless other examples. Yet, Conservatives do nothing. WHy is that? Is it because we are just too damn Civil? Is it because we are all so independant that we can't be cohesive as a group because we are too busy infighting over who is a "real"conservative, who is a Libertarian, who is a RINO, who is a "neo con"? I suspect that the latter is the true Achille's Heel for Conservativism. We are all so principled that we expect and support only those that fit our own narrow definition, and as such we lack the ability of a true movement to organize and mobilize. We are also too NICE to take on the Left using their own tactics. This is a problem, the left has taught us the ugliness of "any means necessary" but the right has forgotten that there is a such thing as RIGHT. Justice is the only law, and just as war is necessary to protect freedom and people die, Freedom is worth the price. As the only country left on earth willing to fight for that, and the only country in the world that has been able to turn the world back from darkness based on principle and not simple defensive acts of aggression, how can we reconcile this truth with our own weakness in the face of Tyranny in our own homeland?
Are we really "above all that", or "too busy working" or too "civilized" or doing "real" charity work? All the excuses and smug proclamations I hear time and again, or are we really just weak and afraid? It would be naive' to think that despite our awareness of Leftist bias, it hasn't taken at least some small foothold in ourselves would it not? That bias manifests itself in our own adoption of Political Correctness, and our participation in Exoriating fellow conservatives that are truly unafraid to be politically IN correct (IE conservative Ire towards Ann Coulter), or when we tell a liberal if and when we do, that we are a Conservative and then follow it with "but I didn't believe in the war" (IE Tucker Carlson talking about John Stewart), or for many Libertarians, it is a way to BE a conservative, without looking like it to the Libs: "You don't believe in Affirmative action? What are you a ReTHUGLIcan? "ah, no actually I am a Libertarian, and here are all the ways that I agree with you!! Or when you believe in everything the Republican party stands for, or Conservativism, but say "I am an Independent!" Afterall, if you are an independant, it doesn't mean that you are a Free Thinker, it just means that you are weak and/or Naive. Bottom line is, we like to whine, especially to ourselves, but every time I am standing in a locker room at the gym talking about the BS that Obama is pulling and I am "shushed" by a fellow Conservative who acts as though we are living in the Stazi, I realize that we have bought a lot of the indoctrination, and it has resulted in our utter helplessness and inability to stand up for what is right. It will finally happen, just when it is too late. The left knows this, and look how much "change" has been wrought in just a couple months! In four years, we will all be in insane asylums. Amendment 426c: Conservativism, is a dangerous mental disorder and must be "treated" in an institution. All estate is to be titled to the Federal government (for redistribution, to the "right" people of course!).
For a quick overview you can search for "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" in Wikipedia.
"… in December 2003, the Supreme Court upheld most of the legislation in McConnell v. FEC"
In June 2007, some of BCRA's limitations were found unconstitutional "…as applied to ads susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote…"
"Some election law experts believe the new exception will render BCRA's "electioneering communication" provisions meaningless, while others believe the new exception is quite narrow."
So, it seems a little wiggle room has been provided, but BCRA is still pretty much the law of the land.
If upheld this type of regulation will prove to be a double-edge sword. Today its “Hillary the Movie” but tomorrow it will be Moore’s “9/11″ and Stone’s “W” or any number of movies that have a “political” bent. Government should never have the power to decide for adults whether political commentary is too persuasive, caustic or unbalanced nor should it decide whether it can be viewed at home or at theaters.
Oh, bulls__t. Every time a "double-edged" piece of legislation gets passed in DC, the Republicans are the only ones who get cut up.
And the reason the government should never have that power is because the government, like all human endeavors, is subject to bias and prejudice. Any standard that is meant to be applied to all political commentary, never is; I note that Der Stuermer never feared the power of the censor.
Please substitute "attacked" for "attached."
You've just summed up my dislike of bad legislation enforced by worse bureaucracies.
You have the law right, as well as the results. I think the Supremes had a brain fart in "McConnell v FEC," but I think the current case will go the other way. Like the DC gun ownership case, the Court is chipping away at the fringes of past bad constitutional rulings, but is leaving the door wide open to Con-con artists to simply use a different tack. I know they won't do it, but I would love to see the Court simply say "BCRA (McCain-Feingold) is unconstitutional on its face, and don't be bringing any more of these silly misinterpretations of the First Amendment back to us, OK guys?"
Any of us passing through this life should tread very softly concerning the integrity of our Constitution. Ya I know, the liberals use it for a placemats and napkins at their $30,000 a plate fundraisers for semi and full blown socialist candidates but I cling to the belief that right will prevail in the end.Call me naive but I think garbage like that churnned out by the likes of Stone and Moore should be left by the American people to die on the vine. What are the current numbers on W.? In the tank? Barely breaking even? Garbage sinks to the bottom. As fatassed as Moore is, he should sink right away.
I agree with many of your assertions but I disagree with one part. The problem is that after the indoctrination of college many students go to sources and blogs they feel bolster their political beliefs. Twisting of the facts is taught through out college and follows after college. That's why we still have a debate going on about the 2nd Amendment. Even when there are clear facts in print for anyone to read it doesn't always mean that people will interpret them the same way.
I agree with many of your assertions but I disagree with one part. The problem is that after the indoctrination of college many students go to sources and blogs they feel bolster their political beliefs. Twisting of the facts is taught through out college and follows after college. That's why we still have a debate going on about the 2nd Amendment. Even when there are clear facts in print for anyone to read it doesn't always mean that people will interpret them the same way.
fair enough.. I knew it had been brought up.. either way , we the public got screwed on the 2003 decision.
"I would love to see the Court simply say "BCRA (McCain-Feingold) is unconstitutional on its face, and don't be bringing any more of these silly misinterpretations of the First Amendment back to us, OK guys?""
Not as long as Kennedy gets to be the swing vote. He loves the spotlight and ambiguity too much. I too, would think this would be a slam dunk, but after their prior rulings and tortured reasoning on the BCRA, nothing would surprise me. At least we can count on an entertaining opinion from Scalia and/or Thomas.
"I would love to see the Court simply say "BCRA (McCain-Feingold) is unconstitutional on its face, and don't be bringing any more of these silly misinterpretations of the First Amendment back to us, OK guys?""
Not as long as Kennedy gets to be the swing vote. He loves the spotlight and ambiguity too much. I too, would think this would be a slam dunk, but after their prior rulings and tortured reasoning on the BCRA, nothing would surprise me. At least we can count on an entertaining opinion from Scalia and/or Thomas.
I'm sure you're right. Kennedy has his liberal views, but for him it's much more important to be on the "right side." I'm pretty sure he'll consider an anti-BCRA ruling to be the more popular view at the moment, but he'll make sure the decision is so muddled that nobody can make any sense of it. That way, if he lives long enough, he'll be able to say exactly the opposite when the direction of the wind changes, without anybody being able to claim he was holding two self-contradictory opinions. And so he continues to get invited to the best DC and Georgetown cocktail parties.
Scalia's questioning has already given us a strong indication of where his opinion will come down. Thomas was relatively quiet, as usual. Either one will be writing either a concurring opinion, or if it goes the other way, a devastating dissent.
I also wrote a somewhat lengthier response, which went into the robo-moderation rabbit hole. That's twice today, and it's still early.
I say if the movie is Liberal propoganda then show it!
But if it's Conservative propoganda then ban it!
I've spoken.
To put an even finer point on it, the Framers originally intended the First Amendment to protect ONLY political and religious speech. McCain-Feingold and BCRA have turned the intent of the Constitution on its head. Nearly two hundred years of constitutional law held that COMMERCIAL speech had only enough protection to allow freedom of contract and interstate commerce. Beyond that, no protection at all under the First Amendment.
But by virtue of BCRA, "Hillary the Movie" was enjoined because McCain and Feingold didn't like POLITICAL speech (a basic constitutional right), so the appellants are arguing that the movie was strictly COMMERCIAL and should therefore not have been enjoined.
This is Alice in Wonderland law. In order to get a film about a politician seen, you have to argue that it has constitutional protection because it ISN'T political speech. They are forced to argue that the movie shouldn't have been enjoined because it is commercial speech, which traditionally had practically no First Amendment protection at all.
BCRA is an unconstitutional denial of freedom of political free speech, a basic and fundamental right that our Founders risked their lives to put into words. It's time for the Supreme Court to say so, in clear and unequivocal terms. I doubt that it will.
True. Either it's all okay or none of it's okay.
I too would like to see "The Path to 9/11" available on DVD. I missed it when it was shown.
However, the refusal by the production company (Disney I believe) to release it is not censorship. If they want to release it, they can. They simply choose not to.
If not, that is why we have the Second Amendment.
I believe John McCain was one of the sponsors.
From what is said here, it appears that from now, until the next election that Hillary Clinton is running for office, there would be no FEC restriction on showing the movie. So it is kind of a moot point now. If it was restricted by the FEC, it would have been last year, when the Dept. of Justice was under the Bush administration, and the current administration would be presenting argument to the Supreme Court to uphold the previous administration's action. Of course the FEC is nonpartisan, right?
This is a tough question. We all have a favorite candidate who was swamped by last-minute money, liberal or conservative, covering the media with attack ads. Unfortunately, a significant percentage of voters swing with these ads, even if they regret it later. The idea was to keep that sort of blitz from swaying an election, leaving a larger number of not quite so loud voices to all participate in the public square. Michael Moore wouldn't have had any worries about "Roger and Me" or "Bowling for Columbine," but "Farenheit 911" might well have been shut down in Sept and Oct 2004. It could have run most of the summer though.
You must be logged in to post a comment.