Free Speech and Critics of Bush

[Sayhey]

First it was the Reagan mini-series, then it was Moveon.org's ad during the SuperBowl, and now it is Michael Moore's latest movie. I guess if you are going to criticize conservatives, Business interests trumps Free Speech.

Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

By JIM RUTENBERG

Published: May 5, 2004

Associated Press

Michael Moore, speaking at a New York conference last month.

WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.

The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.

Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.

"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."

NYTimes (http://nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?hp)

[Thanatoast]

the rest of the article is worth reading as well
Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's company, backed out.

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."

Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.

A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many.

"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.

Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, but such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.

Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "

Mr. Moore's films, like "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," are often a political lightning rod, as Mr. Moore sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, "Bowling for Columbine," took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like "Stupid White Men," a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.

Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said.

Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's role in the evacuation of relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.

Mr. Moore once planned to produce the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but "the project wasn't right for Icon," said Alan Nierob, an Icon spokesman, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.

Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had distributed Mr. Moore's 1997 film, "The Big One." In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute it.

While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution, which would ideally happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high

[zimv20]

so the rest of the freedom-challenged world would get to see this film, but the bastion of freedom that is the US would not. this is almost too much irony for me today!

[Sayhey]

so the rest of the freedom-challenged world would get to see this film, but the bastion of freedom that is the US would not. this is almost too much irony for me today!

I think this one will backfire. It will be distributed some way, and I hope the RNC organizes picket lines in front of theaters. This material can't be silenced.

[Thanatoast]

so the rest of the freedom-challenged world would get to see this film, but the bastion of freedom that is the US would not. this is almost too much irony for me today!I find the irony in that Disney is creating greater political controversy by refusing to release the film than by simply allowing it to play without the minor scandal.

[numediaman]

Repeat after to me: Eisner has got to go.

[mactastic]

On the one hand, the conservative 'nanny movement' dictating what we should and should not see really pisses me off. On the other hand, Disney has probably just guaranteed sales of this film are high in the same way FOX's silly lawsuit against Franken's book did.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't know anything about Moore's film beyond what was posted about it here, but it seems to be based on Kevin Phillips' recent book, "American Dynasty." So why is this such a controversial topic when Moore commits the same information to film that Phillips put in print?

[3rdpath]

So why is this such a controversial topic when Moore commits the same information to film that Phillips put in print?

because many americans don't read...but most love to sit on their fat butts and watch a movie.

sheesh, most americans would pay to watch paint dry if it meant they could sit in air conditioned comfort and eat milk duds...

[kuyu]

Absolutely insane. I loved Bowling for Columbine.

Michael Moore is a good filmmaker and should NOT be censored. It's a shame that censorship snuck up on us through corporate America, not the government. Take Clear Channel and Stern for instance. The FCC gets touchy, and suddenly Clear Channel decides that Stern has to go,

Here's an idea, use the internet to distribute the film. We've got broadband. Sell it for $10 bucks. There are plenty of servers that would be willing to host the film if they got, say, .20 per download.

[IJ Reilly]

because many americans don't read...but most love to sit on their fat butts and watch a movie.

sheesh, most americans would pay to watch paint dry if it meant they could sit in air conditioned comfort and eat milk duds...

Feeling a bit cynical today, are we? As one who doesn't have a fat behind, but does prefer to sit when he reads or watches a movie, I still see some truth in your observation. Books just don't have the power they once did, at least not compared to the pop culture institutions of movies, radio and TV. Also, the gates-keepers in the movie business are that many fewer, so their personal opinions matter more, and the monetary stakes are higher. Moore will get his movie distributed, of that we can be certain. Right now, I'm wondering whether anybody who believes in the "liberal media" myth is questioning it in light of this and other recent events.

[numediaman]

Right now, I'm wondering whether anybody who believes in the "liberal media" myth is questioning it in light of this and other recent events.

Believing in a "liberal media" is an article of faith for the right wing. It is like believing in God, or that the sun will rise in the morning. If you stop believing in this, then everything falls apart.

The reason is simple: it brings them together. It's like the coach who says before the game "no one believes we can win this game, they all think we are losers -- let's go out and win and prove them wrong." Coaches say this even when their team is favored by two touchdowns.

If the right suddenly says "you know, you're right, we own most of the media outlets" they think they will turn to dust.

[SlyHunter]

Disney is not a member of the "right wing conspiracy"

There may be justice -- or at least some common sense in this world after all. The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new Bush-bashing "documentary" from Michael Moore. The film, called "Fahrenheit 911" links President Bush with the family of Osama Bin Laden and bashes the president throughout, blaming him for 9/11, among other things. Typical liberal trash. The good news is finally Hollywood is starting to see the light (maybe.)

Does this mean that the Disney empire is conservative .. even Republican? Hardly. Remember, Disney was the number one corporate contributor to The Hildabeast when she ran for Senator in New York. These folks are most definitely aligned to the left. Mickey Mouse would call himself a "progressive." You can't say that Disney is friendly towards or supportive of the Bush administration.

But try to tell that to Michael Moore. We all know what's going to happen here. Michael Moore will hit the media full-throttle with lies about how the administration is censoring his film and about how this is what America has come to blah blah blah. The left is very good at playing the victimology card, and you can bet this is what is going to happen here. He's already started. In a statement on Tuesday, idiot Moore said "At some point the question has to be asked, 'Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information the public is allowed to see?" Nonsense. Just because a company exists in a free and open society doesn't mean that it has any responsibility to market a film that it realizes is full of lies, half-truths and hatred. If Michael Moore wants to exercise his right of free speech he can market and distribute his latest effort on his own.

Just why did Disney make this decision? Maybe it's because they now know that Michael Moore isn't above placing deliberate lies in his motion pictures. Let's take Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" for instance. Moore says that he gave the film this name because the two killers were at a bowling class -- they went bowling -- on the morning of their attack. Not true. They weren't there ... and so the lies began. You can learn more by going to the Bowling For Truth website.

This is not a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech does not mean that private company has to publish or market material that it knows, or has reason to suspect it dishonest.

By the way .. has anyone ever seen Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy in the same room at the same time? A little hair coloring can do marvelous things.


http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Oh another interesting read
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
example of lies in bowling for columbine

To further the peaceful-Canadian motif, Moore shows us the over-the-counter purchase, no questions asked, of some ammunition in an Ontario Wal-Mart store. The Canadian government has pointed out that if the scene was not faked, such a transaction would be illegal, since the buyer is required to present identification. Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. Moore did not respond to a request from the government's Canadian Firearms Centre to explain whether he staged a fake purchase, edited out the ID request, or broke the law.

You might say 'so what' if Moore edited out the show of ID. If Moore simply chose not to show how he revealed his identification to the salesperson, there is nothing fraudulent about that., except that his entire point here is an easy buy. Depriving the viewer of knowing the purchase wasn't as easy breezy beautiful as this cover girl scene is misleading.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/walmart.htm

This site is full of moore's lies.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

[SlyHunter]

A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many.

"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html
As a private company Disney has a right to forbide publishing things that could alienate a large segment of their customers. They aren't just in business to make movies they have other activities that they also have to take into consideration.

[IJ Reilly]

Believing in a "liberal media" is an article of faith for the right wing.

I wish I could remember where I saw it, but a few months back I read a piece by a prominent conservative columnist in which he decried the right wing's steady anti-press drumbeat over the last 20 years. It seems some traditional conservatives still recognize the press as one of the cornerstones of our democracy. Unfortunately, not only are these voices lost in the din, it may be too late to turn back the clock. Over this time, the media became too timid and commercial, and far too many people have grown up with the idea that comforting propaganda trumps truth. Something crucial to our well-being has slipped away, and sadly, only a small fraction of the population even seems to know it, let alone cares.

[SlyHunter]

So Moore is proven a liar again.

Is bloviator Michael Moore making up stuff again?

Sure looks like it.

Just days from the opening of the Cannes Film Festival he’s basking in a wave of publicity that the Walt Disney Company is blocking subsidiary Miramax from distributing his new documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” on political grounds.

Publicity-hound Moore’s allegations about Disney ring false. The very same Disney Company -- through its Hyperion division-- just published Pacifica Radio host Amy Goodman’s new book “The Exception to the Rulers” – a volume brimming with just as much lefty fringe politics and anti-Bush theorizing as contained in Moore’s films. Indeed, Goodman's book is a blunder-buss assualt on corporate media conglomerates-- like Disney!

The Mouse House seems sophsiticated enough to put up with and even finance the slapshots by Goodman and Moore if a profit is to be made. Duh!

Dissecting the current dust-up, it seems clear that Disney never intended to distribute Moore's film. Maybe the Mousketeers are cowards, but at least they are consistent. And Moore is whining now only to hype the pre-Cannes buzz. Sources report that Miramax never planned to release the Moore film, that it was always slated to come out through Lions Gate, as did the earlier Dogma.


Michael Moore, the establishment-bashing comedian and film-maker, accused the Walt Disney Company of political censorship yesterday because the company is refusing to distribute his latest documentary lambasting the Bush administration’s handling of national security since 11 September.

Controversy over the film, entitled Fahrenheit 911, erupted on the front page of the New York Times and elsewhere just days before Mr Moore is due to take the film to the Cannes Film Festival for its world premiere.

In an open letter to supporters, Mr Moore accused Disney of trying to kill the film, which is being produced by the Disney subsidiary Miramax, because the company was worried about its business interests in Florida and did not want to offend Governor Jeb Bush, the president’s brother.

“I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter,” he wrote. “For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge.”

Disney officials appeared to be caught off guard by this onslaught and denied that the company’s decision was motivated by political interests in Florida. They also pointed out they had made it clear a year ago that they wanted no involvement with Fahrenheit 911, which was picked up by Miramax against the wishes of its corporate parent. [My emphasis -ed.]
http://www.marccooper.com/

[Lyle]

First it was the Reagan mini-series, then it was Moveon.org's ad during the SuperBowl, and now it is Michael Moore's latest movie. I guess if you are going to criticize conservatives, Business interests trumps Free Speech.

I know that this is sort-of a pointless question, but I'll ask it anyways.

For those of you familiar with Air America (http://www.airamericaradio.com), here's a thought experiment. Suppose that, for whatever reason, Rush Limbaugh decides that he would like for his show to be carried on Air America's stations. From a "strictly business" standpoint, Rush's show is one of the most popular talk radio shows in the country and makes a lot of money for its advertisers. Will Air America agree to broadcast his show? If not, is that censorship?

[mactastic]

AFAIK Air America doesn't own any broadcasting stations. That's why they're having trouble staying on the air.

[Ugg]

I know that this is sort-of a pointless question, but I'll ask it anyways.

For those of you familiar with Air America (http://www.airamericaradio.com), here's a thought experiment. Suppose that, for whatever reason, Rush Limbaugh decides that he would like for his show to be carried on Air America's stations. From a "strictly business" standpoint, Rush's show is one of the most popular talk radio shows in the country and makes a lot of money for its advertisers. Will Air America agree to broadcast his show? If not, is that censorship?

Air America's audience would simply stop listening if Rush's program was aired. That is bad business so it is really a moot point. MM's movies have been smash hits and have garnered the distributors tons of money so it seems to be a bad business decision on the part of Disney IF their decision was made solely on economics. Doesn't Disney sponsor "Gay Days" at their theme parks? They surely aren't afraid of taking a political stand so there is no doubt in my mind that this is purely political and has nothing to do with economics.

[pseudobrit]

I know that this is sort-of a pointless question, but I'll ask it anyways.

For those of you familiar with Air America (http://www.airamericaradio.com), here's a thought experiment. Suppose that, for whatever reason, Rush Limbaugh decides that he would like for his show to be carried on Air America's stations. From a "strictly business" standpoint, Rush's show is one of the most popular talk radio shows in the country and makes a lot of money for its advertisers. Will Air America agree to broadcast his show? If not, is that censorship?

Air America doesn't broadcast to local markets, they create syndicated shows. Limbaugh already has such a structure in place. Now, if Limbaugh went to Air America and asked to do a show on their network, then it would be up to Air America as to wherther it would make business sense for them to produce such a programme.