U.S. Censorship of the movie Hillary

[ironsides]

Will the U.S. Supreme Court ban the movie Hillary?

"The justices' review of the slashing documentary financed by longtime critics of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton could bring more than just a thumbs up or thumbs down. It may settle the question of whether the government can regulate a politically charged film as a campaign ad."



`Hillary: The Movie,' now showing at Supreme Court

 

[tw_exile]

There goes the 1st Amendment! When you can categorize to end someones right to express there views/opinion/whatever, then we no longer have a true right to free speech, cause they can make a law to take away any part or portion of said right, therefore there is no right to free speech anymore in the United States of America! So, I ask what are our soldiers fighting for, to bring freedom or oppression to other nations or to keep us safe from who (we need to be saved from our own government), as it seems they will have to come home to oppression, makes no sense, but if it did we won't call it a government (I guess)!

 

[ironsides]

Looks like Obama is going after both the 1st and 2nd Admendment.

 

[Francis2004]

ironside

Isn't this just another Michael Moore copy cat going after the President stunt then going after Hillary than anything else ?

Personally I think they should just let it go as the more publicity they give this the more people will show interest.

And like everything, they probably have a lot of truth behind some of this. How much of it has the Hollywood spin, well I would not bet much more then I do on election results.

 

[ironsides]

That is exactly what it is another Michael Moore copy cat, and probably a half dozen more. But somehow now that the Democrats are running the show it is becoming a 1st Amendment issue. I say just let it go also, most people never heard of it till now.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I think there is a lot of hysteria displayed in this forum; it is time to calm down. I read the feature article and it isn’t about 1st amendment at all. The movie was made when Hillary was the leading presidential candidate and it was showed in eight theatres when it was made. There was no problem with it being shown.

The question before Supreme Court isn’t whether the movie should be banned (nobody is saying it should be), but whether the McCain Feingold applies here. Also, Supreme Court has to decide whether the movie is a documentary, or whether it is a 90 minute political attack ad. If it is a political attack ad, it will be covered by McCain-Feingold.

So all Supreme Court is deciding is how the movie should be treated, as a documentary or a political attack ad. The Appeals court ruled that it indeed was a political attack ad and as such is covered by McCain-Feingold (thus if the movie is shown on cable TV, all the backers of the movie would have to be named and the group will have to pay the cost of running the movie).

So 1st amendment is not in any jeopardy, the hysteria shown here notwithstanding. The only question is how the movie should be treated, as a documentary or a political attack ad.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Looks like Obama is going after both the 1st and 2nd Admendment.

Ironsides I am not aware that Obama is a plaintiff in the suit.

Incidentally, this same outfit, Citizens United, which is supposedly now a bastion of 1st amendment, tried to do to Michael Moore’s film, ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’, what is being done to them.

Citizens United in 2004 sought to keep filmmaker Michael Moore from advertising "Fahrenheit 9/11" — which was critical of President George W. Bush — in the run-up to the presidential election.

So this supposed bastion of free speech wanted to limit the free speech of Michael Moore.

So guys, if you want to support a conservative, Hillary hating outfit, that is your right. But please, don’t paint this as some kind of last stand, or gunfight at the OK Corral for free speech. Nothing of the sort. It is just one political group trying to promote its political agenda. When it suited them, they were perfectly happy trying to put restrictions on speech that they disapproved of.

So as far as Citizens Untied is concerned, the chickens are coming home to roost. They tried to do it to Michael Moore, now presumably Michael Moore is trying to do it to them. But either way, nothing is banned and nothing will be banned, so calm down.

 

[ironsides]

Michael Moore had the right to say/do what he did. I didn't particularly like what or how he portrayed the U.S. in all his film's. Put he and all Americans are protected under the 1st Amendment. No different than what is going on with Hillary movie. So what if it is an attack or critical critique of her. Still covered under free speech. I don't think slander is a issue, so what is the problem.

 

[petros]

Hillary is one bizarre person and has lots to hide.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Michael Moore had the right to say/do what he did.

Really, ironsides? Then did you condemn Citizens United when it was trying to prevent him from advertising his film during the 2004 campaign? Because what Citizens Untied is complaining about, that it was being kept from advertising during the 2008 campaign, they tried to do exactly the same thing to Michael Moore, they tried to prevent him from advertising during the 2004 campaign.

No different than what is going on with Hillary movie. So what if it is an attack or critical critique of her. Still covered under free speech.

Quite right, it is not a free speech issue; nobody is trying to ban it. It is a McCain-Feingold issue. The court has to decide whether it is a documentary or a political advertisement. If it is documentary, it is treated one way, if it is a political advertisement, it is treated another way (it will be subject to McCain-Feingold). So what is all the fuss about? Nobody is trying to ban the movie. Whether a documentary or a political advertisement, they will be able to show the movie subject to certain regulations), and they already have shown the movie. So again, what is the fuss about?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Hillary is one bizarre person and has lots to hide.

Really? But according to ironsides, it is Obama who is trying to stifle the 1st amendment. Then which is it, Obama or Hillary? Or are they in it together?

The fact is, the movie has been shown in theaters, it can be shown on TV, cable, in theatres etc. even as the lawsuit is proceeding, nobody is stopping them from showing it. Since the lawsuit is about whether it is a documentary or a political ad, show it as a political ad and nobody will stop its showing. They can go ahead and show it now.

As I said, it is much ado about nothing.

 

[ironsides]

What difference does it make? You still can say anything you want as long as it is not slander (sometimes public official just have to grin and bear it). As to Moore, I never objected to his right to say anything or his movie. It never made it to the Supreme Court, so was a non issue.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I consider myself a strong supporter of freedom of speech. However, one has to be careful of political groups, who try to use the excuse of freedom of speech to promote their views and try to suppress the views that they disagree with.

The group Citizens United is a political hack group, which tried to limit the speech with which they disagreed (Michael Moore). And now that the left wing groups (and I don’t think it is either Hillary or Obama which is the plaintiff) are doing the same to them, giving them a taste of their own medicine, they are crying foul, claiming freedom of speech.

They support freedom of speech about as much as Dracula supports guarding the blood banks.

 

[petros]

Really? But according to ironsides, it is Obama who is trying to stifle the 1st amendment. Then which is it, Obama or Hillary? Or are they in it together?

The fact is, the movie has been shown in theaters, it can be shown on TV, cable, in theatres etc. even as the lawsuit is proceeding, nobody is stopping them from showing it. Since the lawsuit is about whether it is a documentary or a political ad, show it as a political ad and nobody will stop its showing. They can go ahead and show it now.

As I said, it is much ado about nothing.

Publicity is publicity.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What difference does it make? You still can say anything you want as long as it is not slander (sometimes public official just have to grin and bear it). As to Moore, I never objected to his right to say anything or his movie. It never made it to the Supreme Court, so was a non issue.

It may not have made to the Supreme Curt, but Citizens United did file a complaint against Michael Moore with Federal election Commission, according to the article.


This isn't the first time documentary filmmakers have been questioned in relation to campaign finance laws. Citizens United in 2004 sought to keep filmmaker Michael Moore from advertising "Fahrenheit 9/11" — which was critical of President George W. Bush — in the run-up to the presidential election.

The Federal Election Commission, charged with enforcing the McCain-Feingold law, dismissed the complaint after Moore said he had no plans to run the ads during election season.


The fact that they didn’t succeed is neither here not there. But then the question arises, did you oppose Citizens United filing a complaint with FEC in 2004? Or is your outrage limited to only when left wing groups file lawsuits against right wing groups?

 

[ironsides]

I consider myself a strong supporter of freedom of speech. However, one has to be careful of political groups, who try to use the excuse of freedom of speech to promote their views and try to suppress the views that they disagree with.

The group Citizens United is a political hack group, which tried to limit the speech with which they disagreed (Michael Moore). And now that the left wing groups (and I don’t think it is either Hillary or Obama which is the plaintiff) are doing the same to them, giving them a taste of their own medicine, they are crying foul, claiming freedom of speech.

They support freedom of speech about as much as Dracula supports guarding the blood banks.

:lol:

By the way it is Obama, the buck stops there. Bush got the blame for Moore and a lot more for similar reasons.


The Supreme Court doesn't just pick the case off the top of their heads. Don't think the Republicans brought the case to them. Who cares if it was Citizens United or the ACLU that started it, not important.

 

[ironsides]

It may not have made to the Supreme Curt, but Citizens United did file a complaint against Michael Moore with Federal election Commission, according to the article.


This isn't the first time documentary filmmakers have been questioned in relation to campaign finance laws. Citizens United in 2004 sought to keep filmmaker Michael Moore from advertising "Fahrenheit 9/11" — which was critical of President George W. Bush — in the run-up to the presidential election.

The Federal Election Commission, charged with enforcing the McCain-Feingold law, dismissed the complaint after Moore said he had no plans to run the ads during election season.


The fact that they didn’t succeed is neither here not there. But then the question arises, did you oppose Citizens United filing a complaint with FEC in 2004? Or is your outrage limited to only when left wing groups file lawsuits against right wing groups?

I didn't really care what they did then. Anybody can file a complaint about anything. Only wastes time and money. What I object to is anybody questioning a statement about anything political or whatever. Who would get the premium if they voted it so, it is a mute topic and should never have come up before the Supreme Court.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Who would get the premium if they voted it so, it is a mute topic and should never have come up before the Supreme Court.

I see nothing wrong in Supreme Court deciding if a movie is a documentary or a political ad. That is the proper job of the court. Again, nobody is talking of banning the movie, nobody’s freedom of speech is restricted. That is simply a red herring.

It is the usual infighting between left wing and right wing groups, nothing more. The Supreme Court will rule as it sees fit. But whichever way it rules, nobody’s freedom of speech is infringed. The movie will be shown either as a documentary (with no restrictions) or as a political advertisement (with McCain-Feingold restrictions).

It is the far right group, Citizens United which is crying foul because a left wing group brought a lawsuit against them (incidentally ironsides, are you sure that Obama is the plaintiff? The news article doesn’t’ mention that).

This is not a freedom of speech issue, it is the usual left – right infighting.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

:lol:

By the way it is Obama, the buck stops there. Bush got the blame for Moore and a lot more for similar reasons.


The Supreme Court doesn't just pick the case off the top of their heads. Don't think the Republicans brought the case to them. Who cares if it was Citizens United or the ACLU that started it, not important.

I looked it up, ironsides, and you are wrong, it isn’t Obama. The lawsuit was brought by the Federal Election Commission. As far as I am aware, FEC is an independent organization (funded by the government, I assume) and it has nothing to do with Obama.

When a government body or organization does something, you are right, the buck stops with Obama (though interestingly, it never stopped with Bush, he always blamed somebody else, whether it was the FEMA during Katrina fiasco, or CIA for faulty intelligence about WMDs etc.).

However, when an independent organization does something, that can hardly be attributed to Obama. If you think Obama is behind this you have to provide some evidence for it, it will be clearly a case of corruption, a case of government bringing down undue pressure on an organization. If there is evidence for that, Obama should be investigated for it.

But for that, we need some concrete evidence, and not your unsupported opinion, that Obama is behind it. FEC being an independent body, it has nothing to do with Obama.

 

[ironsides]

"I looked it up, ironsides, and you are wrong, it isn’t Obama. The lawsuit was brought by the Federal Election Commission. As far as I am aware, FEC is an independent organization (funded by the government, I assume) and it has nothing to do with Obama."


No, I don't really think Obama is the plaintiff, I just said that because he is the President. (I'm hoping that we don't have another surprise as to who is really running the country. Last time, I am convinced that it was Cheney who was really in charge.) The 'Buck Stops Here" is a Truman quote.